u- 


t- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/baptistsexaminedOOpeat 


THE 


BAPTISTS  EXAMINED; 


OR, 


Common  Sense  on  Baptism,  Close  Communion, 
and  the  Baptists. 


A  DIALOGUE  BETWEEN 


A  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  A  METHODIST. 


BT 

J.    B.    PEAT. 


'  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded." — Jesus. 


FOURTH      EDITION. 


CHIC  A  GO  : 
KENNEY  &   SUMNER, 

SUCCESSORS   TO 

CHURCH     AND     GOODMAN,     PUBLISHERS. 
1869. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S6S,  by 

J.  B.  PEAT, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern 

District  of  Illinois. 


TO    THE  READER. 


"T?OR  a  proper  understanding  of  the  following  Conversations, 
it  is  necessary  to  state  that  they  are  a  common  sense  inves- 
tigation of  Baptism,  Close  Communion,  and  the  Baptists,  by  two 
individuals,  one  of  whom  was  formerly  a  Presbyterian,  and  the 
other  a  Methodist.  They  are  not  myths.  The  Conversations 
are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  relation  of  the  opinions  and 
experience  of  each,  in  a  dialogue  form.  With  three  or  four  excep- 
tions, every  anecdote  and  incident  in  the  book  has  been  furnished 
by  those  personally  acquainted  therewith. 

Having  learned  the  truth,  our  Presbyterian  becomes  its  earnest 
defender.  To  some,  he  may  occasionally  appear  severe  ;  but  he 
is  conscientious  and  sincere  in  his  views.  And  as  our  Pedobap- 
tist  friends  admit  these  to  be  a  sufficient  justification  for  an  indi 
vidual  adopting  what  manner  of  baptism  he  sees  proper,  surely 
they  will  judge  the  Presbyterian  by  the  same  rule,  and  allow  him 
the  privilege  of  giving  expression  to  his  opinions  in  the  way  he 
thinks  best.  We  know  he  has  a  warm  and  charitable  heart,  let 
his  lips  say  what  they  may. 

There  are  some  peculiarities  in  modes  of  expression,  and  some 
repetiiions  of  ideas  and  language,  as  is  common  in  discussions  of 
this  kind ;  which  the  good  sense  of  the  candid  reader  will  no 
doubt  make  allowance  for. 


■ 


4 

CONTENTS. 


FIRST  CONVERSATION. 

Introductory. 

How  the  Conversations  commenced — Doubts  on  baptism — 
How  solved — The  Conversations  proposed 11 

SECOND  CONVERSATION. 

In  which  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  and  the  practice  of  the 
Primitive  Church  are  examined. 

The  investigation  commenced — Common  sense  on  the  word 
baptism — How  the  word  was  used — By  the  Greeks — By  the 
Apostles — By  Jesus — A  word  in  common  use  among  the  peo- 
ple— No  modes  of  baptism  known — The  lexicons — Pedobap- 
tist  testimony — The  usage  of  the  Primitive  Church — Peter's 
reply  to  the  Pedobaptists — Different  word  used  to  designate 
sprinkling — Passages  of  Scripture  in  contrast — Uniformity  of 
practice— King  James's  Bible — A  Methodist's  illustration — 
The  will  of  Jesus  governs  the  mode  of  baptism 23 

THIRD  CONVERSATION. 

The  same  subject  continued. 

What  the  lexicons,  encyclopedias  and  scholars  say — The 
Greek  Church — Reason  given  for  changing  the  ordinance  <A 
baptism 36 

FOURTH  CONVERSATION. 

John's  Baptism. 

The  mode — Common  sense — "What  learned  authors  say  of 
it — The  prepositions  with  and  in — To,  into,  and  out  of— Pedo- 
baptist  invention — Illustrations — Quantity  versus  quality  of 
the  water — A  Presbyterian  and  Methodist's  view — The  asses 


vi  Contents. 

and  camels — A  wag's  illustration — Baptizing  six  millions — 
John's  Presbyterian  canoe — John's  commission — John's  bap- 
tism same  as  Christ's — Testimony — Who  instituted  bap- 
tism?— The  commission — Three  dispensations  and  baptisms — 
John's  baptism  Christian  baptism— 'Nine  reasons  in  proof. . .    48 

FIFTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptism  of  Christ. 

Scripture  account  of—  In,  and  not  at  Jordan — A  Presbyte- 
rian's view — Illustration — Might  have  been — Purification — 
The  Priesthood — Paul's  account — Law  of  Consecration — For 
what  Jesus  was  baptized — As  the  Head  of  His  Church — 
Our  example — Emblematical  of  His  Burial  and  Resurrec- 
tion— Testimony  of  the  Supper  and  Baptism — Paul's  view — 
The  learned 65 

SIXTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptism  of  Paul. 

Bibie  account — Conceded  to  be  immersion — Authorities — 
How  far  a  Methodist  sees — The  fathers — Not  water  enough — 
Who  believe?  —  Why  Paul  baptized  so  few  —  Sprinkling 
proved  from  Solomon's  Songs — Paul's  practice — How  under- 
stood by  Pedobaptists — His  reply  to  a  Pedobaptist  Church — 
Eminent  Pedobaptist  testimony 77 

SEVENTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch. 

A  plain  case — Cries  out  immersion — Twisting  the  Scrip- 
tures— Common  sense  on — Pedobaptists  making  Infidels — 
Anecdote — The  Eunuch's  Presbyterian  flowing  robes — Pedo- 
baptist inventions — Opinions  of  the  learned — Queer  mean- 
ings— Summary  of  the  ground  examined 92 

THE   BAPTISMAL   SCENE 103 

BAPTISM  A  SYMBOL 107 

EIGHTH  CONVERSATION. 

Infant  Baptism. 

Invented  to  save  the  children — First  mode  dipping — Bap- 
tismal regeneration — Invention  of  Popery — The  Methodists 
on — The  Congregationalists   and  Presbyterians — Baptizing 


Contents,  vii. 

dying  children — Anecdotes — Christ  takes  care  of  the  child- 
ren— A  Presbj'terian  comforter  —  Sealing  the  children  —  No 
warrant  for  it  in  the  Bible  —  Pedobaptist  testimony Ill 

NINTH  CONVERSATION. 

Irtfam  Baptism — Concluded. 

The  Methodist's  search  after  infant  baptism  in  the  Bible- 
Example  of  Jesus — Baptists  give  all  the  children  to  Christ, 
but  Pedobaptists  the  baptized — Abuse  of  the  Baptists — Bible 
examples  of  household  baptism — Circumcision — Seal  of  the 
Covenant — What  advantages  have  the  baptized  children  over 
the  unbaptized  ? — Diversity  of  opinions  on — Seed  corn — Dops 
no  good — A  fearful  evil — Sponsors — A  frolicking  Godfather— 
What  are  its  results— Persecutions — A  Baptist  light — Corrup- 
tion of  the  Church  by— A  comparison— Its  charm  destroyed. .  127 

TENTH  CONVERSATION 

SJiowing  'now  Hie  Ordinance  of  Baptism  was  changed  and  who 

changed  it. 

Pedobaptists  have  changed  it — Their  admissions — Exam- 
ples—  Pedobaptists  condemn  themselves  —  Roman  Catholic 
admissions  —  First  law  authorizing  sprinkling — When  intro- 
duced into  the  Church  —  Important  Pedobaptist  admissions — 
Changed  for  expedience,  and  as  a  salvation — First  example  of 
infant  baptism — Novation — Cyprian — Changed  for  the  sick — 
Common  sense — Pedobaptists  first  disturbers  of  the  harmony 
of  the  Church 14tf 

ELEVENTH  CONVERSATION. 

On  the  right  of  changing  the  Ordinances. 

Obedience  the  test  of  love  —  Algernon  Sydney  —  Roman 
Catholic  assumptions — The  right  assumed  —  Mr.  Beecher's 
position  —  Bible  teaching — Teachings  of  Anti-Christ  —  A 
Roman  Catholic  reply — Experience — Agreement  of  Catholics 
and  Pedobaptists  —  Disposition  to  improve  on  God's  plan — 
The  result  of  changing  Christ's  Ordinances 166 

TWELFTH  CONVERSATION. 

Pedobaptists  Opposition  to  Immersion. 

The  opposition— A  combination— Declaration  of  opposition 
to  the  Baptists — Co-workers  —  Great  success  of  immersion  - 


vi  Contents. 

and  camels — A  wag's  illustration — Baptizing  six  millions — 
John's  Presbyterian  canoe — John's  commission — John's  bap- 
tism same  as  Christ's — Testimony — Who  instituted  bap- 
tism?— The  commission — Three  dispensations  and  baptisms — 
John's  baptism  Christian  baptism— 'Nine  reasons  in  proof. . .    48 

FIFTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptism  of  Christ. 

Scripture  account  of— In,  and  not  at  Jordan — A  Presbyte- 
rian's view — Illustration — Might  have  been — Purification — 
The  Priesthood — Paul's  account — Law  of  Consecration — For 
what  Jesus  was  baptized — As  the  Head  of  His  Church — 
Our  example — Emblematical  of  His  Burial  and  Resurrec- 
tion— Testimony  of  the  Supper  and  Baptism — Paul's  view — 
The  learned 65 

SIXTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptism  of  Paul. 

Bibie  account — Conceded  to  be  immersion — Authorities — 
How  far  a  Methodist  sees — The  fathers — Not  water  enough — 
Who  believe? — Why  Paul  baptized  so  few  —  Sprinkling 
proved  from  Solomon's  Songs — Paul's  practice — How  under- 
stood by  Pedobaptists — His  reply  to  a  Pedobaptist  Church — 
Eminent  Pedobaptist  testimony 77 

SEVENTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch. 

A  plain  case — Cries  out  immersion — Twisting  the  Scrip- 
tures— Common  sense  on — Pedobaptists  making  Infidels — 
Anecdote — The  Eunuch's  Presbyterian  flowing  robes — Pedo- 
baptist inventions — Opinions  of  the  learned — Queer  mean- 
ings— Summary  of  the  ground  examined 92 

THE  BAPTISMAL  SCENE 103 

BAPTISM  A  SYMBOL 107 

EIGHTH  CONVERSATION. 

Infant  Baptism. 

Invented  to  save  the  children — First  mode  dipping — Bap- 
tismal regeneration — Invention  of  Popery — The  Methodists 
on — The  Congregationalists   and  Presbyterians — Baptizing 


Contents,  vii. 

dying  children — Anecdotes — Christ  takes  care  of  the  child- 
ren— A  Presbyterian  comforter  —  Sealing  the  children  —  No 
warrant  for  it  in  the  Bible  —  Pedobaptist  testimony Ill 

NINTH  CONVERSATION. 

Infant  Baptism — Concluded. 

The  Methodist's  search  after  infant  baptism  in  the  Bible- 
Example  of  Jesus — Baptists  give  all  the  children  to  Christ, 
but  Pedobaptists  the  baptized — Abuse  of  the  Baptists — Bible 
examples  of  household  baptism — Circumcision — Seal  of  the 
Covenant — What  advantages  have  the  baptized  children  over 
the  unbaptized? — Diversity  of  opinions  on — Seed  corn — Does 
no  good — A  fearful  evil — Sponsors — A  frolicking  Godfather— 
What  are  its  results— Persecutions—  A  Baptist  light — Corrup- 
tion of  the  Church  by— A  comparison— Its  charm  destroyed. .  127 

TENTH  CONVERSATION 

Showing  how  tlie  Ordinance  of  Baptism  was  changed  and  who 

changed  it. 

Pedobaptists  have  changed  it — Their  admissions — Exam- 
ples—  Pedobaptists  condemn  themselves  —  Roman  Catholic 
admissions  —  First  law  authorizing  sprinkling — When  intro- 
duced into  the  Church  —  Important  Pedobaptist  admissions — 
Changed  for  expedience,  and  as  a  salvation — First  example  of 
infant  baptism — Novation — Cyprian — Changed  for  the  sick — 
Common  sense — Pedobaptists  first  disturbers  of  the  harmony 
of  the  Church 14<* 

ELEVENTH  CONVERSATION. 

On  the  right  of  changing  the  Ordinances. 

Obedience  the  test  of  love  —  Algernon  Sydney  —  Roman 
Catholic  assumptions — The  right  assumed — Mr.  Beecher's 
position  —  Bible  teaching — Teachings  of  Anti-Christ  —  A 
Roman  Catholic  reply — Experience — Agreement  of  Catholics 
and  Pedobaptists  —  Disposition  to  improve  on  God's  plan — 
The  result  of  changing  Christ's  Ordinances 166 

TWELFTH  CONVERSATION. 

Pedobaptists  Opposition  to  Immersion. 

The  opposition — A  combination — Declaration  of  opposition 
to  the  Baptists — Co-workers  —  Great  success  of  immersion  - 


viii.  Contents. 

Prejudicing  the  public  mind — Tricks  of  Pedobaptists — We've 
got  to  go  to  the  water — Examples  of  opposition — Presbyterian 
logic  equal  to  the  Roman  Catholic's — Divisions  in  families  — 
An  outrage  —  Presbyterian  intolerance  —  One  cause  of  the 
opposition — Lofty  tumbling — The  sliding  scale 183 

THIRTEENTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptists  Examined. 

Baptists  of  England  —  Who  are  Baptists  —  Methodist  disci- 
pline on  baptism — Harping  on  baptism — Pedobaptists  preach 
more  on  baptism  than  the  Baptists — Common  cause  of  Pedo- 
baptists against  the  Baptists — Pedobaptists  cause  of  contro- 
versy on  baptism  —  The  comparison  —  Dr.  Fairchild's  hon- 
esty—  A  Baptist's  reply  —  Preaching  a  full  Gospel  —  Close 
communion — The  Lord's  Supper  in  Heaven — A  Pedobaptist's 
dream —  For  what  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  —  Bap- 
tized believers — Communion  with  Christ — Instituted  for  the 
Church — A  symbol — Judas — The  example  of  Jesus — Subject 
of  communion  turns  on  baptism,  etc.  —  Pedobaptist  testi- 
mony— Pedobaptist  belief — Regeneration  and  baptism  before 
communion — An  incident — Close  baptism — Methodist  seekers 
at  the  Lord's  table  —  Methodists  make  it  close  communion  — 
Open  communion  worst  kind  of  close  communion  —  Loose 
communion  —  Unchristianizing  others  —  Rev.  A.  Barnes  — 
Feeling  versus  principle — Church  independency  —  Baptist 
Churches  sovereign  Democracies — Lord's  Supper  a  Church 
Ordinance — Presbyterian  and  Congregational  views  —  Open 
communion  subverts  Church  order  and  discipline  — Who  the 
judges  of  right  to  communion  —  Sincerity — Let  a  man  exam- 
ine himself— Eating  and  drinking  unworthily 202 

FOURTEENTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptists  Examined — Continued. 

What  Pedobaptists  ask  of  the  Baptists— The  Free  Will— A 
master  stroke  of  policy  —  Pedobaptists'  courtesy — A  liberal 
Christian  gentleman  —  A  liberal  Christian  Presbyterian  — 
Another  specimen  of  liberal  Christianity — A  Congregational 
Deacon  communes  in  a  Baptist  Church — The  table  is  the 
Lord's  —  Pedobaptists  think  more  of  human  institutions 
than  the  Lord's  Ordinance — Close  communion  separates  dear 
friends 239 


Contents,  ix. 

FIFTEENTH  CONVERSATION. 

The  Baptists  Examined — Continued. 

Christian  union  —  Lord's  Supper  not  a  test  of  Christian 
union — The  cry  for  union — American  Sunday  School  Union- — 
The  Cross  and  the  sea-shell — Deacon  Smith's  girls — Two  Bap- 
tist Deacons —  Union  meetings — Slapping  the  Baptists  —  A 
slap  returned  with  interest — Rather  lose  his  soul  than  join  the 
B.aptists — Feelings  of  a  Pedobaptist  and  Methodist  alike — The 
Platform — Pedobaptists  communing  with  each  other — A.  and 
B.,  or  following  the  Saviour — Inconsistency  of  Pedobaptists — 
Feeding  the  children  with  a  spoon  —  No  such  tiling  as  open 
coniinv  nion  among  Pedobaptists — Examples — A  Presbyterian 
law  against  Herefics —  Congregationalists'  love  for  the  Bap- 
tists— Examples — Anecdotes 251 

SIXTEENTH  CONVERSATION. 

Tlie  Baptists  Examined — Continued. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  examined  —  Who  compose  the 
Church — Young  Christians  and  the  ignorant  to  be  kept  from 
the  Lord's  table  —  The  Methodists — Rule  of  communion — A 
Close  Communion  Church  —  Disseminating  erroneous  doc- 
trines— Inveighing  against  the  discipline — Neglect  of  duties — 
Hedding  on  communion — Sticking  to  the  rules — Love-feasts 
and  class- meetings —Mode  of  receiving  members— General  and 
Annual  Conferences — Who  formed  the  Methodist  E.  Church — 
A  Church  without  constituents — Stationing  Preachers — The 
power  of  Preachers 267 

SEVENTEENTH  CONVERSATION. 

Tlie  Baptists  Examined — Concluded. 

Baptist  principles  —  Baptist  history — Baptist  toleration — 
Persecutions  of  the  Baptists — Bancroft's  testimony — Baptists 
of  ancient  origin — Refuse  support  from  the  State  —  Persecu- 
tion of  in  England — In  New  England — In  Virginia — Baptists 
of  Sweden— What  Baptists  are  doing  —  Baptist  Colleges — 
Home  Mission  Society — A  frank  confession 290 

THE   BAPTISM 311 

i* 


x.  Contents. 


AN  INDEPENDENT  CHAPTER. 

Searching  for  the  Truth  —  A  Practical  Illustration  —  The 
Mother  anil  Daughter  —  A  New  and  Valuable  Work  —  A 
Vain  Effort  —  Afraid  of  Hurting  His  Feelings  —  One  Drop 

—  Take  Down  the  Bar — A  Fruitless  Search  —  Non-essential 

—  Foot-prints  —  Father's  all  right  on  Baptism  —  What  For — 
That's  Sufficient  for  Me  —  No  Difference  —  How  Can  I  —  I 
am  Satisfied  —  Take  Up  Thy  Cross  —  A  Contrast  —  The  Di- 
vine Pattern  —  I  Settled  My  Doubts  —  Obedience  to  God  — 
Follow  Thou  Me  —  Baptist  Testimony  —  More  than  Thee  — 
To  and  Into  —  One  Thing  at  a  Time  —  We  Think  So  —  "  Full 
Disciples"  — I  Won't  — A  Baptist  Bible  — Only  One  Pas- 
sage —  I'll  take  the  Genuine  Coin  —  Another  Fact  —  Impos- 
ing on  Common  Sense  —  Show  It  in  the  Book 318 


Fireside  Conversations  on  JBaptism. 


Fii\st    Conversation. 


Introductory* 


ETH0DIST.      "Good    evening,    brother 

E  *  *  *,"  was  the  friendly  salutation  of 

Mr.  C  *  *  *,  a  neighbor,  and  a  member  of 

the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  Mr. 

E.,  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Presbyterian.     Why,  good  evening,  brother  C, 

I'm  glad   to  see   you.     Walk  in  and  take   a  seat. 

Hope  you  have  come  to  spend  the  evening  with  us. 

M.     I  shall  be  glad  to  do  so ;   nay,  I  may  say  I 

have  come  for  that  very  purpose. 

And  then,  taking  seats,  the  two  neighbors  com- 
menced a  conversation  on  miscellaneous  matters,  in 
which  Mr.  C.  contrived  to  introduce  the  subject  of 
baptism.  It  was  evident  that  he  had  been  thinking 
very  seriously  about  it;  and  frankly  acknowledged 
that  of  late  he  had  been  troubled  somewhat  in  his 
mind  on  account  of  it.  To  which  his  Presbyterian 
friend  reolied : 


12  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

P.  Well,  brother  C,  you  are  not  alone  in  that 
matter.  I  find  there  are  a  great  many  troubled  in 
the  same  way.     I  have  been  myself. 

M.  I  understand  you  have  been  examining  the 
subject ;  and  I  should  like  to  hear  your  opinions  in 
regard  to  it.  So  I  have  come  to  have  a  friendly 
conversation  with  you,  if  it  is  agreeable. 

P.  Certainly  it  is  agreeable,  and  I  shall  be  happy 
to  give  you  my  experience.  Truth  courts  investi- 
gation, but  error  shrinks  from  the  light.  What 
is  the  cause  of  your  difficulty  ?  j 

M.  Why,  to  come  at  once  to  the  point,  it  puzzles 
me  sorely  to  know  how  immersion,  pouring,  and 
sprinkling,  can  all  be  baptism.  I  have  always  ad- 
mitted that  immersion  is  baptism,  because  I  found 
it  in  the  Bible.  But  how  pouring  and  sprinkling 
can  be  baptism,  also,  although  I  have  been  so  taught 
to  believe,  is  what  I  can  not  understand. 

P.  Neither  did  I  at  one  time  understand  how 
immersion  could  be  baptism.  I  heard  so  much  from 
our  ministers  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  and  so  very  lit- 
tle in  favor  of  immersion,  but  much  to  condemn  it, 
that  I  concluded  that  sprinkling  was  baptism  beyond 
all  doubt.  But,  as  for  immersion  being  baptism,  it 
seemed  to  me  very  questionable  at  best. 

M.  Well,  that  is  strange.  For  my  part,  I  never 
could  see  how  any  one  could  doubt  the  truth  of 
immersion,  who  was  willing  to  take  the  plain  state- 
ments of  the  Bible  without  the  strange  and  curious 
interpretations  of  men. 


First  Conversation,  13 

P.  To  be  frank,  I  took  the  teachings  of  men 
for  the  Word  of  God.  When  I  read  the  Bible,  it 
was  more  for  the  purpose  of  finding  something  to 
sustain  sprinkling  and  oppose  immersion,  than  to 
ascertain  the  truth. 

M.  That  is  too  much  the  case  with  us  all.  We 
form  opinions  independent  of  the  Word  of  God, 
and  then  try  to  make  it  sustain  them.  And  thus  we 
make  our  opinions  the  test  of  the  truth  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, instead  of  making  the  Bible  the  standard  of 
our  faith  and  practice. 

P.  Yes,  I  frankly  confess  it.  We  talk,  as  Pro- 
testants, of  the  Bible  being  our  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  yet,  some  of  us,  governed  by  our 
feelings,  human  wisdom,  and  expediency,  allow  these 
to  control  our  judgment,  and  condemn  or  approve 
what  they  make  wrong  or  right,  without  carefully 
examining  whether  they  accord  with  the  Scriptures. 
And  yet  a  u  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  is  infinitely  better 
than  all  the  theories  and  contrivances  of  human  wis- 
dom, however  ingeniously  devised  and  plausible  in 
appearance. 

M.  May  I  ask  how  you  were  led  to  investigate 
more  thoroughly  the  subject  of  baptism  ?  I  have 
always  believed  you  firmly  established  in  your  views, 
and  not  given  to  change;  as  one  of  the  steady  kind, 
not  tossed  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine. 

P.  Thank  you  for  your  kind  opinion.  I  always 
prided  myself  on  my  stability  of  doctrine,  and  was 
not  disposed  to  look  with  a  favorable  eye  on  those 


14  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

who  left  our  church,  especially  when  they  left  on 
account  of  baptism.  Somehow  I  could  not  help 
thinking  "  turn  coat,  turn  coat;"  if  I  did  not  say  it. 
I  was  particularly  fond  of  quoting  some  of  our  favor- 
ite expressions  on  such  occasions,  such  as  "  indiffer- 
ency,"  "  non-essential,"  "  baptism  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience,"  etc.;  although,  I  must  acknow- 
ledge, I  was  not  very  willing  to  let  those  satisfy  their 
consciences  who  thought  it  their  duty  to  be  im- 
mersed !  But  now  to  answer  your  question.  You 
know,  as  Methodists  and  Presbyterians,  we  hold  that 
sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion,  are  all  baptism, 
and  that  these  different  and  opposing  modes  were  all 
instituted  by  Christ,  and  practiced  by  the  Apostles." 

M.  Stop  a  while,  brother  E. ;  let  me  reflect. 
"All  instituted  by  Christ,  and  practiced  by  the  Apos- 
tles !"  I'd  like  to  see  the  proof.  I've  been  looking 
for  it  some  time,  but  yet  I  can't  find  it ;  though  our 
friends  say  it  is  so.  It  must  be  hard  to  find,  or  we 
should  have  had  it  before  now ! 

P.  So  would  others  like  to  see  the  proof.  And 
then  we  declare  that  that  mode  of  baptism  which 
satisfies  the  conscience  of  the  candidate  is  to  him 
baptism ! 

M.  Yes,  I  know  we  do.  There  was  Mr.  Dusty, 
a  Congregationalist  minister,  who  said  it  was  no  dif- 
ference whether  an  individual  were  baptized  with 
water,  sand,  or  mud;  and  one  of  the  strangest 
things  of  all  was,  a  large  portion  of  the  audience 
did   not   see  he  was  imposing  on  their  credulity. 


First  Conversation.  15 

But,  really,  I  have  been  at  a  loss  to  know  how  it 
could  be  so,  though  believing  it.  Paul  thought  he 
was  doing  God's  service  when  he  persecuted  the 
Christians,  yet  he  was  condemned  by  Him  for  doing 
it.  I  may  believe  white  is  black,  but  that  does  not 
make  it  so.  Simply  believing  a  thing  never  made 
it  a  truth;  neither  can  it  make  it  right  for  us  to 
practice  it. 

P.  Nor  can  our  honesty  or  sincerity  of  belief 
make  a  wrong  right,  or  justify  us  in  believing  and 
practicing  an  untruth.  And  it  often  occurred  to  me, 
that  as  God  instituted  baptism,  he  must  certainly 
have  instituted  the  mode.  How  could  he  institute 
three  modes  so  widely  different  as  pouring,  sprink- 
ling, and  immersion  ?  Christ,  as  the  head  of  the 
body,  must  have  given  his  church  an  example  of 
baptism,  requiring  of  all  obedience  to  the  same.  It 
was  his  exclusive  prerogative  to  give  doctrines  and 
ordinances  to  his  church ;  and  no  one  has  the  right 
to  substitute  new  things  for,  or  refuse  to  obey,  what 
he  has  commanded,  or  to  repudiate  his  example. 
To  do  this,  is  to  impugn  the  Divine  wisdom,  and 
make  the  opinions  and  notions  of  men  superior  to 
the  wisdom  of  God. 

M.  "  Repudiators  of  Christ's  example!"  Are 
you  not  a  little  severe,  brother  E.  ? 

P.  Probably  I  am.  But  is  it  not  the  truth? 
If  Christ  has  given  us  an  example  of  baptism,  and 
we  will  not  follow  it,  what  is  it  less  than  repu- 
diation ? 


1 6  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Again.  It  occurred  to  me  that  as  Christ  had 
practiced  and  commanded,  and  as  his  disciples  had 
baptized,  so  would  they  baptize  others.  It  appeared 
strange  and  unnatural  to  suppose  that  after  all  this 
the  disciples  would  go  and  practice  something  else. 

M.  Your  conclusions  are  very  reasonable.  No 
■wonder  your  mind  was  disturbed  in  looking  at  the 
subject  in  this  common  sense  light.  Strange  I  did 
not  think  of  that  myself. 

P.  Thus  was  I  led  on,  step  by  step,  from  Christ 
and  his  disciples,  unto  the  Apostle  Paul.  Here  I 
asked  myself,  "Was  not  his  practice  the  same  ?  Was 
there  not  uniformity  of  doctrine  and  practice  among 
all  ?  He  taught  the  same  things  every  where,  in  every 
church.  Certainly  there  must  have  been  uniformity 
among  all  the  disciples,  and  in  the  primitive  church, 
on  baptism.  The  Apostles  would  not  be  likely  to 
set  aside  the  example  and  commandment  of  Christ, 
and  repudiate  their  own  example,  and  introduce  and 
practice  a  variety  of  baptisms  in  the  church. 

M.  How  do  you  know,  brother  E.,  that  the 
Apostle  Paul  taught  and  practiced  the  same  things 
every  where  in  every  church? 

P.  Here  is  what  he  says  :  "  I  have  sent  unto  you 
Timotheus,  who  shall  bring  you  into  remembrance 
of  my  ways  which  be  in  Christ,  as  I  teach  every 
where  in  every  church." — 1  Cor.  iv.  17.  "  Now  I 
praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember  me  in  all 
things,  and  keep  the  ordinances  a3  I  delivered  them 
to   you." — 1   Cor.  xi.   2.      See,  also,  Rom.  vi.  17. 


First  Conversation.  17 

Thus,  you  see,  the  Apostle  was  uniform  in  his  teach- 
ing and  practice. 

M.  These  passages  are  conclusive,  and  have 
relieved  my  mind  of  a  great  difficulty. 

P.  To  proceed.  The  question  was  then  sug- 
gested to  my  mind,  why  should  John  and  the  disci- 
ples go  to  the  trouble  of  going  to  a  river,  and  select 
a  place  for  baptism,  "  because  there  was  much  water 
there,"  and  then  take  the  candidates  down  into  the 
water,  when,  as  we  are  taught,  a  few  drops  would 
have  answered  the  same  purpose,  and  could  have 
been  obtained  anywhere?  "Why  should  Philip  take 
the  Eunuch  down  into  the  water,  and  Paul  and  the 
Romans  and  Colossians  be  buried  in  baptism?  To 
sprinkle  was  certainly  the  easiest  method ;  and  to 
go  away  to  Jordan  and  to  Enon,  and  into  the  water, 
to  find  water  enough  for  that  object,  seemed  alto- 
gether unnecessary  and  uncalled  for.  There  was  in 
it  an  apparent  inconsistency — something  that  I  could 
not  understand;  and  the  morel  looked  at  it,  the 
more  I  was  surprised  and  confused.  I  tried  to 
account  for  it  in  the  fanciful  ways  so  common  among 
us,  but  still  my  mind  was  not  satisfied. 

M.  For  my  part,  I  do  not  see  how  they  can 
satisfy  any  reasonable  mind.  Why,  the  idea  of 
going  away  to  a  river,  and  to  a  place  because  there  is 
much  water  there,  and  into  the  water,  to  get  a  few  drops 
to  sprinkle  on  the  head,  is  enough  to  make  one 
laugh  outright ! 

P.     It  did  seem  very  strange  to  me  :  and  I  soon 


1 8  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

discovered  my  ignorance  on  the  subject  of  baptisrr. 
I  understood  but  very  little  about  it.  My  know- 
ledge was  superficial,  my  opinions  preconceived, 
and  based  upon  the  teachings  of  others;  and  my 
feelings  were  sectarian,  and  bitterly  opposed  to 
immersion  and  immersionists.  I  had  prejudged 
and  condemned  the  case,  without  examining  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses.  As  I  have  stated,  I 
talked  loudly  about  non-essentials,  the  inconvenience 
and  even  indelicacy  of  immersion,  overlooking  the 
commandments  of  God,  and  the  practice  of  the 
Saviour  and  his  Apostles. 

M.  That's  the  way  with  many  of  us.  We  charge 
the  Saviour  with  establishing  a  non-essential  cere- 
mon}r,  and  both  him  and  his  disciples,  and  the  primi- 
tive church  with  practicing  an  indelicate  rite  !  What 
but  an  impure  mind  would  ever  think  of  indelicacy 
in  seeing  the  burial  of  a  believer  in  baptism  with 
Christ? 

[Here  brother  E.  blushed,  which,  being  noticed 
by  brother  C,  he  apologized  by  saying:  "Excuse 
me,  brother  E.,  I  meant  no  offence  to  you."] 

P.  ~No  apology  is  needed,  brother  C.  There  is 
too  much  truth  in  what  you  say ;  and  I  can  not  but 
feel  ashamed  when  I  think  of  my  presumption  in 
calling  that  a  non-essential  and  indelicate  ordinance 
which  Jesus  practiced  and  commanded;  and  which 
the  disciples,  and  so  many  eminently  wise  and  pious 
Christians  did,  "  both  men  and  women."  But,  I 
must  hasten.     I  had  allowed  John  and  the  disciples 


First  Conversation.  19 

to  go  to  Jordan,  and  others  to  the  water,  but  would 
not  let  them  go  into  the  water,  though  the  Bible 
said  they  did.  Why  they  should  all  seek  the  rivers 
and  the  streams  for  baptism,  never  occurred  to  me. 
The  grand  symbolical  meaning  of  baptism,  as  seen 
in  the  burial  of  a  believer  with  Christ  in  the  liquid 
grave,  never  entered  my  mind. 

M.  I  am  astonished.  Why,  that  is  one  of  the 
most  impressive  and  beautiful  features  of  immersion; 
and  though  a  believer  in  sprinkling,  yet  I  must 
admit  that  sprinkling,  compared  to  immersion,  in 
this  sense,  is  a  meaningless  ceremony! 

P.  Yes,  I  see  it  now.  I  found  the  same  state 
of  things  among  my  brethren.  Their  arguments, 
if  they  are  worthy  of  being  called  arguments,  were, 
like  my  own,  all  based  on  assumptions.  But  some 
were  more  inconsistent  than  myself;  for  while  they 
admitted  immersion  to  be  baptism,  they  opposed  it 
with  a  bitterness  that  was  surprising. 

31.  That  is  surprising.  I  can  not  understand 
why  some  believers  in  immersion  oppose  it  with  so 
much  earnestness.  They  must  admit  it  to  be  of 
God,  or  they  ought  not  to  believe  and  practice  it. 
If  it  is  not  of  God,  it  is  of  man ;  and  can  not  possi- 
bly be  baptism ;  and  thus  they  have  no  right  to 
immerse.  Admitting  immersion  to  be  of  God,  their 
opposition  is  really  arrayed  against  him.  One  of 
our  ministers  labored  three  hours  to  convince  an 
individual  that  immersion  was  not  baptism,  and  then 
went  directly  and  immersed  a  candidate ! 


20  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

P.  What  you  have  said  is  very  true.  And  hence 
baptism  is  not  an  indifferent  matter.  It  was  not  as 
indifferent  a  thing  to  be  baptized  as  I  had  supposed. 
There  must  have  been  a  specific  mode  of  baptism. 
What  that  mode  was,  I  resolved  to  ascertain  as  far 
as  I  could,  by  giving  the  subject  a  thorough  investi- 
gation. My  plan  was  this : — first,  I  took  the  Bible 
and  read  carefully  all  that  it  said  on  baptism,  and 
then  I  got  all  the  books  I  could  find  treating  there- 
on, noting  down  all  I  deemed  important  on  the 
subject,  and  deducing  my  own  conclusions  as  I  went 
along.  My  mind  had  received  such  a  Pedobaptist 
bias,  that  I  had  not  yet  learned  to  trust  the  Word  of 
God  alone.  My  prejudices  were  all  against  immer- 
sion. Thus  I  went  to  work,  digging,  I  may  say, 
after  the  truth:  and  no  California  miner  was  ever 
more  anxious  and  intent  on  finding  gold,  than  I  was 
to  discover  the  true  meaning  of  baptism. 

M.  That  was  a  very  fair  and  impartial  way  of 
investigation. 

P.  Not  so  very  impartial  after  all ;  for  while  I 
only  read  one  Baptist  book,  I  examined  a  great 
many  Pedobaptist  authorities. 

M.  [Laughing  heartily.]  Then,  of  course,  you 
came  out  of  the  investigation  a  thorough  Pedo- 
baptist. 

P.  You  will  see.  But  this  much,  however,  I 
will  say  now :  all  the  authors  I  read,  who  wrote 
previous  to  the  present  century,  admitted  immer- 
sion to  have  been  the  primitive  baptism.     They  all 


First  Conversation,  21 

admitted  that  the  ordinance  had  been  changed ;  and 
that  they  only  defended  the  change  on  the  ground 
of  indifferency  and  expediency. 

M.  That  is  all  new  to  me.  I  was  not  aware 
that  our  friends  have  condemned  themselves  by 
admitting  that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  has  been 
changed.  How  can  they  reconcile  the  practice  of 
sprinkling  with  the  admission  that  immersion  was 
the  primitive  baptism  ?  How  can  they  reconcile 
the  apparent  contradiction  between  sprinkling, 
pouring  and  immersion,  and  contend  that  they  are 
all  baptism,  and  ordained  of  God  ?  This,  as  I  told 
you  before,  is  what  puzzles  me. 

P.  Yes,  and  puzzles  thousands  more.  I  have 
found  in  my  investigation  that  there  is  nothing  too 
inconsistent  for  those  to  believe  who  cut  loose  from 
the  anchorage  provided  by  God,  and  drift  into  the 
open  sea  of  human  wisdom,  policy,  and  expediency. 
For  instance,  since  that  time  I  have  seen  the  Arti- 
cles of  Faith  of  a  Congregational  Church,  which 
state  that  they  "  receive  and  apply  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  as  instituted  by  Christ,  and  practiced  by  the 
Apostles"  and  then  sprinkle,  pour,  and  immerse: 
thus  telling  the  world,  as  plainly  as  language  can 
tell,  that  Christ  instituted  for  baptism  all  these 
opposing  modes,  and  that  the  Apostles  practiced 
them.  And  to  this  absurdity  they  solemnly  sub- 
scribe. 

M.  Well,  brother  E.,  it  is  time  for  me  to  return 
home.     And  now,  suppose  we  devote  a  few  evenings 


22 


Conversations  on  Baptism, 


to  a  friendly  investigation  of  the  subject.  I  should 
like  very  much  to  do  so.  The  fact  is,  I  want  to  be 
satisfied  in  my  own  mind.  If  immersion  is  exclu- 
sively baptism,  I  want  to  know  it ;  for  as  it  now 
appears  to  me,  I  can  not  see  how  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, and  immersion  can  all  be  baptism.  There 
must  have  been  one  mode  established  by  God,  and 
practiced  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles ;  and  what  that 
was,  I  want  to  know :  for  that,  and  that  alone,  must 
be  the  rule  for  the  government  of  the  church. 

P.  I  shall  be  glad  to  join  with  you.  Let  us, 
like  the  Bereans,  search  the  Scriptures,  and  see 
what  they  teach  first;  and  then  we  can  examine 
other  authorities.  So,  if  you  will  come  on  Monday 
evening,  we  will  commence  our  investigations.  Let 
us  be  as  frank  with  each  other  as  we  have  been  to- 
night; for  frankness  and  sincerity  become  those 
who  are  searching  for  the  truth. 

M.     I  shall  be  glad  to  do  so.     Say  seven  o'clock. 

[So  it  was  determined,  and  the  two  friends  parted 
for  the  night] 


Second     Conyei\sation. 

In  which  the  Meaning  of  the  Word  "  Baptize"  and  the  Practice 
of  the  Primitive  Church  are  examined. 


ETHODIST.     Good  evening,  brother  E. 
Presbyterian.     Good  evening,  brother 
C,  [shaking  him  cordially  by  the  hand.] 
I  am  glad  to  see  you  punctual  to  the  time 
of  meeting. 

M.  Really,  I  was  so  anxious  to  begin  our  inves- 
tigation that  I  hardly  knew  how  to  wait  till  the  hour 
came.  So,  if  you  have  no  objection,  let  us  com- 
mence at  once. 

P.  Well,  let  us  do  so.  I  would  suggest,  how- 
ever, that  we  first  see  if  we  can  determine  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize  before  we  enter  upon  an 
examination  of  the  leading  examples  of  baptism 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures. 

M.     Yes,  let  us  examine  that  first. 

P.  I  suppose  you  are  aware  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written  in  Greek,  which  was  the  language 
most  generally  understood  in  Judea,  and  the  adja- 
cent countries  first  visited  by  the  Gospel.  It  was 
the  language  of  the  common  people,  as  well  as  the 


24  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

learned,  and  the  sacred  writers  employed  such  words 
as  the  people  well  understood.  Baptize,  a  Greek 
word,  with  an  English  termination,  was  a  word 
commonly  used  among  the  Greeks,  as  the  word  dip 
is  among  the  English  now;  and  they  knew  its 
precise  meaning.  When  the  Apostles  wrote  and 
preached  about  baptism,  the  people  knew  what  they 
meant.  When  they  told  them  to  be  baptized,  they 
knew  they  had  to  be  immersed,  for  that  alone  was 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  common  use  among 
them.  It  was  a  particular  word,  with  a  definite  mean- 
ing:  just  as  the  words  immerse  and  dip  are  used  now. 
When  we  say,  "  Arise  and  be  immersed"  the  people 
know  distinctly  what  we  mean. 

M.  Yes,  that  seems  reasonable.  If  the  speakers 
and  writers  knew  the  language  of  the  people  they 
were  addressing,  they  would  certainly  employ  such 
words  as  would  convey  their  own  meaning,  and 
which  the  people  understood.  An  Englishman 
would  laugh  at  you  if  you  were  to  talk  of  dipping  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring. 

P.  And  so  would  the  Greeks  have  laughed  at 
the  Apostles  if  they  had  talked  about  baptizing  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  When  we  say,  "  Mr.  A.  was 
immersed,"  the  people  are  at  no  loss  to  understand 
the  act  performed.  And  so,  when  the  Apostles  said 
"  be  baptized,"  and  when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans 
and  Colossians,  "we  are  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism," the  people  were  at  no  loss  to  understand 
their   meaning.     The  Apostles   knew  no  modes   of 


Second  Conversation,  25 

baptism:  they  never  talk  about  modes.  We  do,  to 
accommodate  our  arguments  to  the  people,  because 
different  modes  have  been  introduced  into  the 
churches  since  their  day ;  but  they  knew  and  prac- 
ticed nothing  but  immersion.  And  hence,  says  Paul, 
there  is  "  one  baptism." 

In  all  that  is  said  of  baptism  in  the  Scriptures, 
you  find  no  reference  to  modes.  The  Apostles  and 
the  whole  church  were  a  unit  on  this  point.  Be- 
sides, in  all  church  history,  you  never  see  a  doubt 
expressed  about  the  validity  of  immersion.  There 
is  no  controversy  about  its  being  baptism :  but  to 
sprinkling  there  has  ever  been  a  decided  opposition. 
While  we  have  to  admit  that  there  are  clear  and 
undoubted  cases  of  immersion  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  not  one  case  of  sprinkling  can  we  find 
there,  only  by  far-fetched  inferences.  Besides,  as  I 
will  show,  it  is  agreed  by  all  our  writers,  that 
immersion  was  the  general,  if  not  the  universal 
practice  of  the  primitive  church ;  as  one  has 
expressed  it,  it  was  the  general  rule,  and  if  there  was 
any  sprinkling  it  was  the  exception. 

M.  But  what  of  infant  baptism  ?  Do  you  say 
they  did  not  sprinkle  the  children  ? 

P.  Let  infant  baptism  rest  for  the  present.  "We 
will  reach  it  before  we  finish  our  investigations. 
So  to  return :  the  Greeks,  who  surely  ought  to  under- 
stand their  own  language  the  best,  uniformly  say 
that  baptize  means  to  immerse,  and  never  to  sprinkle 
or  pour.     The  Greek  Church  has  always  practiced 


26  Conversations  on  Baptism. m 

immersion,  and  does  so  to  this  day.  A  learned 
Greek,  who  wrote  a  book  on  the  "  Doctrine  and 
Spirit  of  the  Greek  Church,"  says: 

"The  distinguishing  feature  of  the  institution  of 
baptism  is  immersion,  '  baptisma,'  which  can  not  be 
omitted  without  destroying  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
the  sacrament;  and  without,  at  the  same  time, 
contradicting  the  etymological  sense  of  the  word  by 
which  it  is  designated. 

"  The  Western  Church  has,  therefore,  gone  astray 
from  the  imitation  of  Jesus  Christ ;  she  has  frittered 
away  all  the  sublimity  of  the  outward  sign  ;  in  fine, 
she  has  perpetrated  an  abuse,  both  of  words  and  of 
ideas,  in  practicing  baptism  by  sprinkling,  the  very 
mention  of  which  is  a  ridiculous  contradiction.  In 
fact,  the  verb  '  baptizo,'  '  immergo,'  has  but  one 
meaning.  It  signifies  literally  and perpetually  to  plunge. 
Baptism  and  immersion  are  therefore  identical; 
and  to  speak  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  is  the  same  as 
to  speak  of  immersion  by  sprinkling,  or  any  other  like 
contradiction  in  terms." 

M.  Well,  I  sffould  like  to  hear  some  of  our 
scholars  reply  to  this  Greek  writer.  I  suppose  they 
would  tell  us  that  he  did  not  understand  his  own 
language.     It  would  be  so  much  like  them. 

P.  Now,  if  the  Apostles  were  to  write  to  our 
churches,  stating  they  had  been  baptized,  how  could 
the  churches  understand  their  meaning?  Would  it 
not  puzzle  them  to  find  out  whether  the  Apostles 
were   sprinkled,   poured,  or  immersed?     If  Peter 


Second  Conversation,  27 

were  to  call  on  Pedobaptists  now  to  be  baptized, 
would  there  not  be  quite  an  anxiety  to  know  what 
he  meant?  "Which  am  I  to  do,  Peter?"  asks  a 
troubled  inquirer.  "  Your  language  is  so  very 
indefinite,  I  know  not  what  you  mean.  Must  I  be 
sprinkled,  poured,  or  immersed  ?  As  the  case  now 
stands,  I  do  not  know  which  to  do." 

Then,  if  Peter  should  condescend  to  reply,  would 
he  not  say,  "  How  can  you  suppose  I  would  use  a 
word  with  no  definite  meaning !  I  use  one  well 
understood  by  all  the  people.  It  has  one  meaning, 
and  one  meaning  only,  and  that  is  immersion. 
Arise,  and  be  baptized  !" 

M.  It  does  seem  strange  that  the  Apostles  would, 
use  a  word  meaning  every  thing  in  general  and 
nothing  in  particular,  as  our  friends  say  they  have. 

P.  Very  true.  But  how  very  different  the  case 
would  be  with  a  Baptist  congregation.  They  would 
have  no  hesitation  about  Peter's  language.  Obedi- 
ent to  his  call,  the  believing  child  of  God  would 
arise  and  be  immersed. 

M.  I  have  no  doubt  of  that.  They  are  always 
ready  to  jump  into  the  water. 

P.  Yes,  more  willing  to  go  into  the  water  than 
some  of  us  are  to  follow  the  Saviour.  Again  :  If 
baptize  means  to  sprinkle,  why  did  the  Apostles  use 
a  different  word  to  express  sprinkling  ? 

M.  I  was  not  aware  that  they  employed  a  differ- 
ent word.     "What  is  it  ? 

P.     When  they  talk  and  write  about  syrinkliny, 


28  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

they  use  a  word  (rantizo)  conveying  that  particular 
idea.  They  do  not  use  the  word  baptizo.  There  is 
no  misunderstanding  or  controversy  about  it.  It 
means  sprinkling  alone.  Why  use  (as  we  say  they 
have)  the  word  baptize  for  sprinkling,  a  word  with  a 
contrary  meaning,  when  the}7  had  a  word  that  parti- 
cularly and  exclusively  meant  sprinkling?  When 
they  tell  us  the  people  were  baptized,  if  they  were 
sprinkled,  why  not  employ  the  same  word  which 
they  use  when  talking  about  sprinkling  at  other 
times  ? 

"Immerse,  sprinkle,  and  pour,  are  three  distinct 
ideas,  expressed  by  different  words  in  all  languages.  No 
man  in  his  right  mind  would  think  of  immersing  an 
object,  and  saying  he  sprinkled  it;  or  of  sprinkling 
an  object,  and  saying  he  immersed  it.  This  remark 
is  as  applicable  to  the  Greek  as  to  the  English." 

In  the  light  of  common  sense  we  are  logically 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Apostles  meant 
nothing  but  immersion  by  baptize,  or  they  would 
have  used  a  different  word  to  express  it. 

M.  There  is  certainly  great  force  in  what  you 
say. 

P.  To  make  it  still  more  clear,  I  will  here  give 
you  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  where  baptize  and 
sprinkle  occur.  You  can  see  at  a  glance  the  differ- 
ence between  them. 


Second  Conversation. 


29 


PASSAGES  WHERE  BAPTIZE  AND 
BAPTIZED  OCCUR. 


John  did  baptize  (egeneto  bap- 
tizon)  in  the  wilderness. — Mark 
i.4. 

Baptize  (baptizo)  you  with 
water. — Matt.  iii.  11. 


He  that  sent  me  to  baptize 
(baptizein). — John  i.  33. 

And  were  all  baptized  (ebap- 
tizonto)  of  him  in  the  river  of 
Jordan. — Mark  i.  5. 


Jesus  was  baptized  (ebaptisthe) 
of  John  in  Jordan. — Mark  i.  9. 

He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized (baptistlieis)  shall  be  saved. 
— Mark  xvi.  16. 

And  was  baptized  (ebaptistlie) 
himself  and  all  his. — Acts  xvi.  33. 


And  he    baptized    (ebaptisen) 
him. — Acts  viii.  38. 


And  were  all  baptized  (ebap- 
tisanto)  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea. — 1  Cor.  x.  2. 

Buried  with  him  in  baptism 
(baptismati). — Col.  ii.  12. 

Baptizing  (baptizontes)  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc. 
— Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


PASSAGES  WHERE  SPRINKLE, 
SPRINKLED,  AND  SPRINKLING 
OCCUR. 

So  shall    he  sprinkle  (yazze) 
many  nations. — Is.  Iii.  15. 


Then  will  I  sprinkle  (zarakti) 
clean  water  upon  you. — Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25. 

Let  Moses  sprinkle  it  (zerako). 
—Ex.  ix.  8. 

Having  had  our  hearts  sprink- 
led (errantismenoi)  from  an  evil 
conscience,  and  our  body  washed 
(leloumenoi)  with  pure  water. — 
Heb.  x.  22. 


And  sprinkled  (errantise)  both 
the  book  itself  and  all  the  people. 
—Heb.  ix.  19. 

Sprinkled  (errantise)  likewise 
with  blood  botli  the  tabernacle, 
etc. — Heb.  ix.  21. 

Blood  of  bulls,  etc.,  sprinkling 
(rantizousa)  the  unclean. — Heb. 
ix.  13. 

To  the  blood  of  sprinkling 
(rantismon). — Heb.  xii.  24. 


Sprinkling  (rantismon)  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ. — 1  Pet.  L  2. 


30  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

M.  Why  don't  you  give  more  illustrations  of 
sprinkling?  You  don't  mean  to  say  that  these  are 
all  you  can  find  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

P.  That  is  just  the  question  asked  of  a  Baptist, 
when  preaching  on  baptism,  by  a  Methodist.  And 
as  the  Baptist  replied,  so  I  say,  "If  you  will  furnish 
the  passages  I  will  read  them  !" 

These  passages  refer  to  sprinkling  of  blood  alone. 
The  idea  of  sprinkling  clear  water  upon  persons  or 
things  is  not  found  within  the  lids  of  the  Bible. 
Neither  is  there  any  case  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  water  was  poured  upon  any  person.  Sprink- 
ling is  never  used  in  allusion  to  the  rite  of  baptism, 
neither  is  the  word  that  means  to  pour.  Sprinkling 
(rantismori)  occurs  but  twice,  Heb.  xii.  24,  and  1  Pet. 
i.  2;  both  refer  to  sprinkling  of  blood;  so  does  Heb. 
x.  22. 

Another  word,  procheusis  (pouring),  translated 
sprinkling,  occurs  but  once,  and  then  refers  to  blood. 
—Heb.  xi.  28. 

Sprinkling  the  blood  of  Christ,  to  take  away  "  an 
evil  conscience,"  is  the  only  sprinkling  referred  to 
in  the  New  Testament,  after  which  the  body  is  to 
be  washed  in  pure  water. — Heb.  x.  22. 

Now  let  us  see  what  meaning  Jesus  gives  to  the 
word  baptize,  for  he  has,  by  his  own  baptism, 
defined  its  meaning.  Suppose  baptize  meant  several 
distinct  modes,  which  I  deny,  would  not  Jesus  have 
been  baptized  in  the  way  he  intended  that  others 
should  be,  and  thus  convey  his  meaning  of  baptism  ? 


Second  Conversation,  31 

M.  Certainly  he  would.  It  is  unreasonable  to 
suppose  he  would  perform  an  act  which  was  entirely 
opposed  to  his  intention. 

P.  Just  so.  And  thus  being  himself  immersed, 
immersion  was  the  expression  of  his  understanding  of 
baptism.  He  had  a  divine  meaning  to  show  by 
baptism,  and  that  meaning  found  an  infallible  voice 
in  immersion.  As  pouring  and  sprinkling  could 
not  convey  it,  he  was  neither  sprinkled  nor  poured. 

Thus  has  Jesus  defined  his  own  meaning  of  bap- 
tism, by  being  himself  immersed.  That  is  the  law 
which  he  has  given  his  church,  and  pouring  and 
sprinkling  are  violations  of  that  law. 

Can  common  sense  believe  that  the  Saviour  would 
be  immersed,  submit  to  a  specific  thing,  and  then 
use  a  word  to  describe  it  that  implied  something 
else  ?  Can  common  sense  believe  that  he  would 
command  his  disciples  to  go  and  do  that  which  he 
had  himself  submitted  to,  and  which  they  had  done 
under  his  own  eye  in  the  Jordan,  in  such  words  as 
might  imply  something  else?  He  knew  what  he 
said,  and  he  meant  what  he  said.  He  had  been 
immersed,  and  he  commanded  immersion. 

M.  That  is  all  very  true;  and  so  the  Apostles 
must  have  understood  him. 

P.  Of  course  they  did;  and  hence,  it  is  not 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  after  Christ  had  given 
them  an  example  of  baptism  by  being  immersed,  and 
commanded  them  to  go  and  baptize,  in  language 
they  all  understood,  that  they  would  go  and  disre- 


32  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

gard  his  example,  and  violate  his  commands.  Nor 
is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  after  being  im 
mersed  themselves,  they  would  turn  round,  some  to 
immersing,  some  to  pouring,  some  to  sprinkling, 
and  still  others  to  denouncing  baptism  as  an  unne- 
cessary ordinance,  according  to  the  whims  of  the 
people,  as  we  do.  No,  my  dear  friend,  we  do  them 
great  injustice  by  all  such  weak  and  vain  supposi- 
tions. I  tell  my  servant  to  go  and  plow  my  field. 
He  knows  what  plowing  means,  for  he  has  seen  me 
use  the  instrument.  Can  common  sense  suppose 
that  he  would  pass  by  the  plow  and  take  the  harrow, 
and  then  call  it  plowing? 

M.  No;  common  sense  would  prevent  him  from 
doing  such  a  foolish  thing.  But  why  did  not  King 
James'  translators  translate  the  Greek  word  baptize 
into  English?  If  it  means  to  sprinkle,  or  to  pour, 
why  not  thus  translate  it  ?  If  I  believed  it  meant  to 
sprinkle,  I  should  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  so. 
If  I  were  to  ask  to  be  sprinkled,  I  certainly  should 
not  use  a  word  that  misrht  mean  something  else.  It 
appears  very  strange  and  suspicious. 

P.  Because  they  were  prohibited  by  the  King. 
That  is  one  of  the  words  he  would  not  allow  them 
to  translate,  for  fear  of  disturbing  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Church  of  England.  And  it  is  to  be 
feared  that  many,  in  order  to  keep  their  churches 
from  being  disturbed  now,  oppose  the  translation  of 
the  word. 


Second  Conversation,  33 

M.  Well,  I  wonder  if  that  is  not  one  reason  why 
they  won't  have  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible  now! 

One  of  our  ministers,  brother  E.,  told  his  congre- 
gation that  baptize  was  &  generic  term,  as  ride.  Now, 
said  he,  a  man  may  ride  on  horseback,  in  a  wagon, 
or  in  a  carriage. 

P.  Yes,  and  on  a  rail,  too  ;  yet  you  would  rather 
not  see  your  son  ride  in  that  way.  But  suppose  you 
had  but  one  way  of  riding,  and  you  were  to  tell  him 
to  ride  to  the  village,  what  would  he  understand  ? 

M.  Why,  of  course,  that  he  should  ride  that 
way. 

P.  Apply  the  illustration  to  baptism.  The 
Saviour  had  but  one  way  of  baptizing;  and,  as  I 
have  said,  when  he  commanded  his  disciples  to  go 
and  baptize,  they  knew  what  he  meant. 

I  once  heard  a  minister  say  that  baptize  was  like 
the  verb  to  reap.  "  Why,  brethren,"  said  he,  "  we 
can  reap  with  a  sickle,  scythe,  or  reaper !" 

M.  As  to  that  matter,  he  might  have  added  a 
jack-knife! 

P.  And  very  appropriately.  But  his  illustration, 
as  applied  to  baptism,  is  all  nonsense ;  and  his  con- 
clusion drawn  from  a  wrong  premise.  Baptize  is 
not  a  generic,  but  a  specific  word.  It  means  nothing 
but  immersion.  But  suppose  you  had  but  one  way 
of  reaping,  and  knew  but  one  way,  and  that  was 
sickling,  you  would  not  be  likely  to  tell  your  son  to 
go  and  use  a  reaper.  Such  ministers  assume  for 
granted  what  they  ought  first  to  prove.     Let  them 


34  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

first  prove  that  Christ  had  and  commanded  several 
modes  of  baptism,  and  that  the  Apostles  practiced  them 
—  let  them  prove  that  baptize  is  a  generic  and  not  a 
specific  word.  Until  they  do  this,  they  only  show- 
to  the  world  their  own  ignorance,  and  common 
sense  rejects  their  illustrations  as  erroneous  and 
foolish. 

Thus  the  word  baptize  means  immersion,  and 
nothing  else;  and  when  the  Bible  speaks  of  baptism 
it  is  in  that  sense.  When  the  Saviour  commanded 
his  disciples  to  "  go  into  all  the  world,"  and  preach 
the  Gospel  and  baptize,  and  to  teach  the  people  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  he  had  commanded, 
he  knew  what  the  word  meant,  and  they  went  forth 
with  a  definite  understanding  of  what  was  required 
of  them,  and  uniformly  taught  and  practiced  in 
obedience  thereto. 

Says  a  writer :  "  Positive  precepts  are  always 
definite,  and  enjoin  the  observance  of  certain  out- 
ward acts  and  ceremonies :  under  the  Law,  circum- 
cision, the  passover,  and  the  numerous  injunctions 
of  the  Levitical  code :  under  the  Gospel,  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Positive  precepts  prescribe 
the  mode  of  action,  and  any  deviation  from  that 
mode  is  an  act  of  disobedience,  and  may  nullify  the 
procedure.  If  in  the  purifying  ceremony  of  the  law, 
wherein  a  bunch  of  hyssop  was  to  be  dipped  in  the 
water,  in  order  to  sprinkle  the  unclean  person,  an- 
other kind  of  shrub  or  tree  had  been  used;  and  if, 
instead  of  dipping  it  in  the  water  they  had  poured 


Second  Conversation,  35 

water  upon  it — the  ceremony  would  have  been  null 
and  void,  and  the  person  would  have  remained 
unclean.  God  had  ordered  hyssop  to  be  used,  and 
he  had  ordered  hyssop  dipped  in  the  water.  Any 
departure  from  this  command  vitiated  the  whole. 

"  So  of  baptism.  If  the  Lord  Jesus  commanded 
believers  to  be  baptized,  then  the  baptizing  of 
unbelievers,  or  of  persons  unable  to  believe,  is  not 
Christian  baptism.  If  baptism  be  immersion,  then 
sprinkling  or  pouring  is  not  baptism.  If  baptism 
be  sprinkling  or  pouring,  then  immersion  is  not 
baptism. 

"  The  will  of  Jesus  governs  the  matter.  If  he 
said  '  immersion,'  then  sprinkling  is  wrong,  and 
sprinkled  persons  are  un baptized.  If  he  said 
*  sprinkle,'  then  immersion  is  wrong,  and  immersed 
persons  are  unbaptized." 

But  I  see  it  will  be  impossible  to  finish  this 
subject  to-night,  so  let  us  defer  it  for  another  con- 
versation. 

[To  which  the  Methodist  consented,  and  they 
parted  to  renew  the  subject  the  next  evening.] 


Thip^d       1  ::;versation, 


Same  Subject   Continued. 


'HIS  evening  brother  C.  was  early  in  attend- 
ance, when  Mr.  E.  soon  commenced  the 
-   :::>n  by  saying:  ;*  Well,  brother 
C,  let  us  now  resume  the  subject  com- 
menced last  evening.  " 

ML  Yes.  let  us  do  so.  You  have  excited  my 
curiosity,  and  I  am  anxious  to  hear  more  about  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize ;  and  to  see  how  you 
can  prove  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  church. 

P.     To   begin,   then,   I   will    now   furnish    you 
lence  from  learned  autho: 

In  the  first  place,  thirty-two  Greek  lexicons  and 
lexicographers  unite  in  saying  that  baptize  means 
to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse,  and  not  one  of  them 
to  sprinkle. 

-mne  standard  lexicons  and  encyclopaedias, 
made  by  learned  scholars  of  different  denominations 
in  different  countries  and  in  different  ages,  and 
covering  the  whole  field  of  biblical  literature,  agree 


Third  Conversation.  37 

in  the  testimony  that  baptize  means  to  immerse,  and 
none  of  them  pretend  that  it  means  to  sprinkle  or 
pour. 

Fifty-three  eminent  Pedobaptist  scholars  and 
divines  eive  ^  ^he  same  meaning. 

Everv  one  of  the  fourteen  translations  of  the 
Bible  into  the  different  lan^ua^es,  made  during  I 
first  ei^ht  centuries  after  Christ,  either  eive  the 
word  baptize  itself,  or  translate  it  by  a  word  which 
means  to  immerse,  and  never  by  one  meaning  to 
sprinkle  or  to  pour.* 

M.     That  is  undoubtedly  very  striking  proof. 

P.  It  is :  and  in  the  next  place,  the  Oriental  or 
Greek  Church,  which  now  embraces  Greece,  B  s- 
sia,  and  other  larsre  regions  of  countrv,  has  alw. 
held  that  immersion  is  the  only  perfect  and  Scrip- 
tural baptism,  and  still  holds  it.  They  call  the 
Western  Churches  "  sprinkled  Christians."*  The 
Roman  Catholic  Church  admits  that  immersion  was 
the  primitive  baptism;  and  only  justifies  the  sub- 
stitution of  sprinkling  on  her  assumed  right  to 
change  the  ordinances,  and  make  new  ones  for  the 
church. 

Says  Cardinal  'Wiseman,  u  We  retain  the  name 
of  baptism,  which  means  immersion.  We  cling  to 
names  that  have  their  rise  in  the  fervor  and  glory 
of  the  past :  we  are  not  easily  driven  from  the 
recollections  which  hang  eveu  upon  syllable  3 

*  See  Manual  of  Baptism,  by  Rev.  G.  5.  Bailey.  P.P..  containing:  more  rich  and 
valuable   material  on  the   -  I  baptism,  than  any  other  work  of  so  small  a 

lUe.     The  reader  will  do  well  to  procure  it. 


38  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

"  The  chief  points  of  practice,"  says  Archbishop 
Kenrick,  "  on  which  changes  have  taken  place  in 
the  course  of  ages,  are  the  manner  of  administering 
baptism  and  the  eucharist,  as  also  penitential  disci- 
pline. The  solemn  mode  of  baptism  was  originally 
by  immersion.  The  church  claims  the  right  to 
regulate,  at  her  just  discretion,  whatever  regards 
the  manner  of  administering  the  sacraments." — 
Appleton's  N.  A.  Cyclopaedia,  article  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  p.  143. 

Immersion  is  the  rule  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Says  the  rubric :  "  And  then  naming  it  [the  child] 
after  them  [the  sponsors],  (if  they  chall  certify  him 
that  the  child  may  well  endure  it,)  he  shall  dip  it  in 
the  water  warily  and  discreetl}7."  It  is  then  added: 
"But  if  they  certify  that  the  child  is  weak,  it  shall 
suffice  to  pour  on  it." 

M.  That  reminds  me  of  what  John  Wesley  says 
in  his  Journal,  published  by  our  Book  Concern, 
under  dates  of  February  21  and  May  5,  1736: 

"  Mary  Welch,"  says  he,  "  aged  eleven  days,  was 
baptized  according  to  the  custom  of  the  first  church, 
and  the  rule  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  im?ner- 
sion.  The  child  was  ill  then,  but  recovered  from 
that  hour."  "  I  was  asked  to  baptize  a  child  of 
Mr.  Parker's,  second  bailiff  of  Savannah;  but  Mrs. 
Parker  told  me,  'Neither  Mr.  P.  nor  I  will  consent 
to  its  being  dipped.'  I  answered,  '  If  you  certify- 
that  your  child  is  weak,  it  will  suffice  (the  rubric 
says)  to  pour  water  upon  it.'     She  replied,  '  Nay, 


Third  Conversation,  39 

the  child  is  not  weak,  but  I  am  resolved  it  shall  not 
be  dipped.'  This  argument  I  could  not  confute; 
so  I  went  home,  and  the  child  was  baptized  by 
another  person  !" 

And  not  lon^  afterwards  one  Causton  made  a 
complaint  against  Mr.  Wesley,  before  the  grand 
jury  of  Savannah,  Ga.,  charging  him  with  having 
"  broken  the  laws  of  the  realm^  contrary  to  the 
peace  of  our  sovereign  lord  the  king,  his  crown  and 
dignity,  by  refusing  to  baptize  Mr.  Parker's  child, 
otherwise  than  by  dipping,  except  the  parents  would 
certify  it  was  weak,  and  not  able  to  bear  it;"  on 
which  charge  Mr.  Wesley  was  presented  to  the  court 
for  trial,  though  twelve  of  the  jury  opposed  the 
presentment,  considering  him  'justified  by  the 
rubric.'" — Wesley's  Works,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  20,  24,  42. 
New  York:  1840. 

P.  Mr.  Wesley  was  right  according  to  the 
rubric.  And  until  the  Reformation,  both  in  Eng- 
land and  Scotland,  infants  were  immersed. 

Again  :  More  than  sixty  celebrated  Pedobaptists 
declare  immersion  to  have  been  the  primitive  bap- 
tism. I  will  give  you  extracts  from  a  few  of  the 
most  distinguished : 

Luther, — "  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  death  and  resurrection.  Being 
moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  that  are  to  be  baptized, 
to  be  wholly  dipped  into  the  water,  as  tlie  word  imports  and  the 
mystery  does  signify."* 

Speaking  of  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  death  and  the  resurrection 

*lTom.  II.,  p.  19. 


40  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Luther  says :  "  On  this  account  I  could  wish  that  such  as  are  to 
be  baptized,  should  be  completely  immersed  into  the  water,  according 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  the  signification  of  the  ordinance, 
as  also,  without  doubt,  it  was  instituted  by  Christ." 

Calvin. — "  The  very  word  baptize,  however,  signifies  to  immerse; 
and  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient 
church."* 

Again,  on  John  iii.  23,  and  comments  on  Acts  viii.  38 :  "  From 
these  words  it  may  be  inferred,  that  baptism  was  administered  by 
John  and  Christ,  by  plunging  the  whole  body  under  water.  Here 
we  perceive  how  baptism  was  administered  among  the  ancients ; 
for  they  immersed  the  whole  body  in  water." 

Mosheim. — "  Jesus  himself  established  but  two  rites,  which  it  is 
not  lawful  either  to  change  or  to  abrogate  :  viz.,  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper."! 

"  In  this  century  (the  first),  baptism  was  administered  in  conve- 
nient places,  without  the  public  assemblies;  and  by  immersing  the 
candidates  wholly  in  water. "\ 

In  the  second  century  "  the  candidates  for  it  were  immersed 
wholly  in  water,  with  invocation  of  the  sacred  Trinity,  according 
to  the  Saviour's  precept.  "§ 

Neander. — "  Baptism  was  originally  administered  by  immer- 
sion, and  many  of  the  comparisons  of  St.  Paul  allude  to  this  form 
of  its  administration.  The  immersion  is  a  symbol  of  death,  of 
being  buried  with  Christ ;  the  coming  forth  from  the  water  is  a 
symbol  of  a  resurrection  with  Christ,  and  both  taken  together 
represent  the  second  birth  —  the  death  of  the  old  man  and  a  resur- 
rection to  a  new  life."|| 

"  In  respect  to  the  form  of  baptism,  it  was  in  conformity  with 
the  original  institution,  and  the  original  symbol,  performed,  by 

*  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Eeligion.  By  John  Calvin,  vol.  II.,  p.  491.  Phil- 
adelphia :   Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication. 

t  Institutes  of  Ecclesiastical  History.    By  John  Lawrence  Von  Mosheim,  D.D., 
vol.  I.,  p.  84,  sec.  1.     New  York:  Harper  &  Brothers. 
%  Ibid,  p.  8T,  sec.  8. 
§  Ibid,  p.  3T,  sec.  13. 

\  The  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church.  By  Dr.  Augustus  Nean- 
der;  p.  197.     Philadelphia:  James  Campbell  &  Co. 


Third  Conversation*  41 

immersion,  as  a  sign  of  entire  immersion  into  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
of  being  entirely  penetrated  by  the  same. — Gh.  History,  vol.  i.,p.  110. 
"  On  the  original  rite  of  baptism  there  can  be  no  doubt  what- 
ever that  in  the  primitive  times  the  ceremony  was  performed  by 
immersion.  *  *  *  The  practice  of  immersion,  in  the  first 
centuries,  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  prevalent  in  the  whole  church.1''* 

Knapp. — "  Immersion  is  peculiarly  agreeable  to  the  institution 
of  Christ,  and  to  the  practice  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  and  so  even 
John  baptized,  and  immersion  remained  common  for  a  long  time 
after.  It  would  have  been  better  to  have  adhered  generally  to  the 
ancient  practice,  as  even  Luther  and  Calvin  allowed."! 

Storr  and  Flatt. — "  The  disciples  of  our  Lord  could  under- 
stand his  command  in  no  other  manner  than  as  enjoining  immer- 
sion; for  the  baptism  of  John,  to  which  Jesus  himself  submitted, 
and  also  the  earlier  baptism  (John  iv.  1)  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
were  performed  by  dipping  the  subject  into  cold  water,  as  is  evident 
from  the  following  passages :  Matt.  iii.  6 — '  Were  baptized  in  Jor- 
dan ;'  v.  16 — '  Jesus  ascended  out  of  the  water ;'  John  iii.  23 — 
'Because  there  was  much  water  there.'  And  that  they  actually 
did  understand  it  so,  is  proved  partly  by  those  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  which  evidently  allude  to  immersion :  Acts  viii.  36,  39 ; 
xvi.  12-15 ;  Rom.  vi.  4 ;  Col.  ii.  12.  *  *  *  It  is  certainly  to 
be  lamented  that  Luther  was  not  able  to  accomplish  his  wish  with 
regard  to  the  introduction  of  immersion  in  baptism. "^ 

Winer,  Tholuck,  Hahn,  Augusti,  and  Jacobi  say,  "  The 
whole  body  was  immersed  in  water." 

Beza,  the  learned  associate  and  colleague  of  Calvin,  at  Geneva, 
says,  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized,  by  which  word  it  is 
certain  immersion  is  signified."  *  *  *  "To  be  baptized  in 
water  signifies  no  other  than  to  be  immersed  in  water,  which  is 
the  external  ceremony  of  baptism." 

*  See  Neander's  Letter  to  Rev.  Wm.  Judd.    Judd's  Review  of  Prof.  Stuart,  p.  194. 

t  Lectures  on  Christian  Theology.  By  George  Christian  Knapp,  D.D.,  Prof,  of 
Theology  in  the  University  of  Halle.  Translated  by  Leonard  Woods,  Jr.,  D.  D., 
Theological  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 

%  Biblical  Theology,  translated  from  the  works  of  Profs.  Storr  and  Flatt.  By  S. 
8.  Schmucker,  D.  D.,  Prof,  of  Theology  in  the  Theol.  Seminary  of  the  General 
Synod  of  the  Ev.  Lutheran  Church,  Gettysburg,  Penn.,  pp.  513-516. 


42  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Melancthon,  the  companion  of  Luther — "  Baptism  is  an  entire 
action,  to  wit :  a  dipping,"  etc. 

Sherlock.  —  "  Baptism,  or  our  immersion  into  water,  accord- 
ing to  the  ancient  rite  of  administering  it,  is  a  figure  of  our  burial 
with  Christ,  and  of  our  conformity  to  his  death,  and  so  signifies 
our  dying  to  sin,  and  walking  in  newness  of  life." 

Waddington.  —  "  The  ceremony  of  immersion,  the  oldest  form 
of  baptism." 

Dr.  Rees. — "Baptism,  in  theology;  formed  from  the  Greek 
baptizo,  of  bapto,  I  dip  or  plungv,  **  rite  or  ceremony.  *  *  * 
In  the  primitive  times  this  ceremony  was  performed  by  im- 
mersion" 

Greenfield,  who  declared  that  he  was  "  not  a  Baptist,  nor  the 
son  of  a  Baptist,"  but  who  was  a  remarkable  linguist,  says  :  "The 
term  immerse,  or  what  is  equivalent  to  it,  appears  the  only  term 
which  can  be  properly  employed  as  a  translation  of  the  Greek 
word  baptizo." 

Jeremy  Taylor.  —  "  The  custom  of  the  ancient  churches  was 
not  sprinkling  but  immersion ;  in  pursuance  of  the  sense  of  the 
word  (baptize)  in  the  commandment,  and  the  example  of  our 
blessed  Saviour." 

Dr.  DeWette,  a  learned  author,  and  translator  of  the  Bible 
into  German. — "  They  were  baptized,  immersed,  submerged,.  This 
is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  frequentative  from  bapto,  to  immerse, 
(John  xiii.  26.)    And  so  was  the  rite  according  to  Romans  vi.  3." 

Dr.  M.  G.  Bucener. —  "In  the  first  times  persons  to  be 
baptized  were  immersed,  while  at  the  present  day  they  are  only 
sprinkled  with  water." 

Dr.  Bengel.  —  On  "  much  water,"  John  iii.  23  :  "  So  the  rite 
of  immersion  demanded." 

John  D.  Michaelis,  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Gottingen. 
"  The  external  action  which  Christ  commanded  in  baptism,  was 
immersion  under  water.  This  the  word  baptizo  signifies;  as  every 
one  who  knows  the  Greek  will  answer  for.    The  baptism  of  the 


Third  Conversation.  43 

Jews  was  performed  by  immersion;  so  also  was  the  baptism  of 
John  (John  iii.  23 ;)  and  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  first 
Christians  baptized  in  the  same  manner." 

Says  Curcellaeus,  an  eminent  minister  and  a  renowned 
scholar,  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Amsterdam,  in  the  seventeenth 
century :  "  Baptism  was  by  ■plunging  the  whole  body  into  water, 
and  not  by  sprinkling  a  few  drops,  as  is  now  the  practice.  Nor 
did  t?ie  disciples,  that  were  sent  out  by  Christ,  administer  baptism 
afterward  in  any  other  way." 

Dr.  Anthon,  the  most  extensive  editor  of  classical  literature  in 
America,  and  Professor  of  Greek  in  Columbia  College,  New  York, 
says :  "  The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  dip  or  immerse, 
and  its  secondary  meanings,  if  it  ever  had  any,  all  refer  in  some 
way  or  other  to  the  same  leading  idea.  Sprinkling,  etc.,  are 
entirely  out  of  the  question." 

Dr.  Chalmers,  Presbyterian,  on  Rom.  vi.  4:  "The  original 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism  is  immersion  ;  and  though  we  regard 
it  is  as  a  point  of  indifterency  whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be 
performed  in  this  way  or  by  sprinkling,  yet  we  doubt  not  that 
the  prevalent  style  of  administration  in  the  Apostles'  days  was  by 
an  actual  submerging  of  the  whole  body  under  water." 

M.  Stop,  brother  E.,  I  can't  help  but  interrupt 
you  here.  I  see  you  are  quoting  from  Presbyterian 
authors.  Why,  I  heard  the  other  day  a  Presbyte- 
rian declare  we  couldn't  find  immersion  in  the  Bible. 

P.  He  must  certainly  have  been  very  much  in 
the  dark,  for  some  of  the  ablest  scholars  among  the 
Presbyterians  unequivocally  declare  immersion  to 
have  been  the  primitive  baptism.     To  proceed  : 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  a  celebrated  Presbyterian  divine  of 
Scotland,  and  President  of  Marischal  College — "  The  word  bapti- 
zein,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to 
plunge,  to  immerse.  It  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  mean- 
ing."— Notes  on  New  Testament,  Andover,  vol.  ii.,  p.  20. 


44  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Dr.  Macknight,  twenty  years  Moderator  of  the  Presbyterian 
General  Assembly  of  Scotland. — "  In  baptism  the  baptized  person 
is  buried  under  water,"  etc. — On  Epistles,  vol.  i.,  p.  259. 

Rev.  John  Wesley,  in  a  note  on  Romans  vi.  4,  "  We  are  buried 
with  him,"  says,  "  Alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing 
by  immersion." 

Rev.  Joseph  Benson,  in  his  commentary,  adopts  Mr.  Wesley's 
language  as  his  own,  and  says :  " '  Therefore,  we  are  buried  with 
him.'  Alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion." 

Chambers'  Cyclopgsdia. — "  In  the  primitive  times  this  cere- 
mony (baptism)  was  performed  by  immersion,  as  it  is  to  this  day 
in  the  Oriental  churches,  according  to  the  original  signification  of 
the  word." 

Baxter. — "  It  is  commonly  confessed  by  us  of  the  Anabaptists, 
as  our  commentators  declare,  that  in  the  Apostolic  times  the  bap- 
tized were  dipped  over  head  in  water." 

Westminister  Assembly  op  DrviNES,  consisting  of  fifty 
eminent  ministers,  in  Annotations  on  Rom.  vi.  4,  " '  Buried  with 
him  in  baptism.'  In  this  phrase  the  Apostle  seemeth  to  allude  to 
the  ancient  manner  of  baptism,  which  was  to  dip  the  parties 
baptized,  and,  as  it  were,  bury  them  under  water." 

Prof.  Stuart,  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  "  Bapto  and 
laptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse  into  any  thing  liquid. 
All  lexicographers  of  any  note  are  agreed  on  this."  Again  :  "  The 
passages  which  refer  to  immersion  are  so  numerous  in  the  Fathers, 
that  it  would  take  a  little  volume  merely  to  recite  them."  *  * 
*  "But  enough.  'It  is,' says  Augusti,  'a  thing  made  out,' viz., 
the  ancient  practice  of  immersion.  So,  indeed,  all  the  writers  who 
have  thoroughly  investigated  the  subject  conclude.  I  know  of  no 
one  usage  of  ancient  times  which  seems  to  me  more  clearly  made 
out.  I  can  not  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  candid  man,  who 
examines  the  subject,  to  deny  this." — Stuart  on  Baptism,  pp.  51, 
147, 149. 


Third  Conversation.  45 

P.  It  is  enough.  The  evidence  is  full  and  com- 
plete. These  are  all  Pedobaptist  authors.  Are  you 
satisfied  ?  I 

M.  You  have  presented  a  most  formidable  array 
of  authors,  and  they  generally  testify  in  a  frank, 
unequivocal  manner.  But  are  not  some  of  these 
learned  men  advocates  of  infant  sprinkling?  I  had 
supposed  that  Calvin  at  least  was  strongly  in  favor 
of  the  sprinkling  of  infants.  I  can  not  understand 
all  this.  If  I  had  heard  a  Baptist  talk  as  you  do,  I 
should  have  thought  he  had  garbled  the  statements 
of  these  eminent  divines,  and  done  as  some  very 
"  liberal "  Christians  do  when  they  quote  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

P.  I  think  you  will  hardly  suspect  me  of  unfairly 
representing  these  justly  celebrated  men;  some  of 
whom  the  Christian  world  has  just  reason  to  be 
proud. 

M.  No;  I  believe  I  should  do  you  an  injustice 
if  I  entertained  any  such  opinion.  But  I  am  bound 
to  believe  that  these  men  had  some  reasons  for 
adopting  sprinkling,  and  practicing  it  in  their  public 
ministrations. 

P.  The  only  reason  they  have  ever  given  for 
changing  the  primitive  baptism,  for  they  admit  the 
change,  is,  that  it  is  a  point  of  "  indifferency  "  how 
a  person  is  baptized.  Two  learned  Episcopalians 
have  the  candor  to  say,  "  It  must  be  a  subject  of 
regret,  that  the  general  discontinuance  of  this  original 
form  of  baptism  [immersion] — though  perhaps  neces- 


46  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

sary  in  our  northern  climates — has  rendered  obscure 
to  popular  apprehension  some  very  important  pas- 
sages of  Scripture." 

31.  "Well,  but  Christ  knew  as  much  about  our 
"northern  climates"  as  we'do  now,  when  he  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  go  and  baptize.  That's  no 
reason  for  changing  his  ordinance. 

P.  Certainly  not.  If  it  is  impossible,  which  I 
deny,  to  immerse  in  northern  climates,  God  requires 
no  impossibilities.  Baptism  is  not  essential  to 
salvation.  But  he  does  require  that  nothing  else 
shall  be  substituted  for  it. 

Thus  you  see  from  the  best  authority  that  baptize 
means  to  immerse,  and  that  immersion  was  the 
universal  practice  of  the  primitive  church  for  nearly 
three  centuries;  and,  with  the  exception  of  clinic 
baptisms,  the  uniform  practice  for  over  thirteen 
hundred  years. 

M.  The  proof  you  have  given  is  certainly  com- 
plete and  overwhelming,  and  ought  to  convince 
every  unprejudiced  mind  of  the  truth  of  immersion. 

P.  It  has  certainly  convinced  me.  Why,  Mr. 
Coleman  himself,  strong  Pedobaptist  as  he  is,  has 
to  confess  in  his  Ancient  Christianity  Exemplified, 
"in  the  primitive  Church,  immediately  subsequent  to 
the  age  of  the  Apostles,  this  [immersion]  was  unde- 
niably the  common  mode  of  baptism.  The  utmost 
that  can  be  said  of  sprinkling  in  that  early  period  is,  that 
it  was,  in  case  of  necessity,  permitted  as  an  exception  to  a 


Third  Conversation,  47 

general  ride.  This  fact  is  so  well  established,  that  it 
were  needless  to  adduce  authorities  in  proof  of  it." 

31.  "Well,  if  immersion  was  the  general  rule,  or 
common  mode  of  baptism  in  the  primitive  church, 
and  if  it  is  the  utmost  that  can  be  said  of  sprinkling 
in  that  early  period,  that  in  cases  of  necessity  it  was 
permitted  only  as  an  exception;  why  should  we  be 
required  to  abandon  a  certainty  for  an  uncertainty? 
to  give  up  a  general  rule  for  an  exception  ? 

P.  A  Pedobaptist's  reply  to  your  question  would 
be,  because  it  is  more  convenient,  not  right!  Thus 
was  immersion  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church. 

[And  thus  concluded  the  Third  Evening's  Con- 
versation.] 


f 


OURTH 


P 


ONYERSATION 


John's  Baptism. 


ROMPTLY  at  the  hour  agreed  upon,  after 
the    usual    friendly   greetings,    the    two 
neighbors    entered    upon    the   evening's 
examination. 
P.     To  follow  the  plan  adopted  in  my  investiga- 
tion, brother  C,  let   us  now  look   at  the  leading 
examples  of  baptism  given  in  the  New  Testament. 

M.  That  is  the  way  I  should  like  to  proceed. 
These  great  governing  examples  will  be  sufficient 
for  me,  and  must  decide  the  question. 

P.  Let  us  first,  then,  examine  John's  baptism. 
And  now  let  us  see  what  the  Scriptures  say  about 
the 

mode  of  j-ohn's  baptism. 

This  we  learn  was  immersion,  for  he  baptized  in 
the  river  of  Jordan  and  in  Enon.  Read  the  pas- 
sages : 

"  And  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins." — Matt.  iii.  6 


Fourth  Conversation.  49 

"  And  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." — Mark  i.  5. 

"Jesus  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan." — Mark 
i.  9. 

"  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there." — John 
iii.  23. 

Thus,  you  see,  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  in 
Enon,  "  because  there  was  much  water  there." 
Much  water  is  the  specified  object  for  baptizing  in 
Enon,  and  we  may  also  say  in  the  river  of  Jordan. 
Says  a  learned  author,  at  one  time  a  Presbyterian, 
"  The  use  of  the  water  is  not  left  to  conjecture.  It 
is  specifically  mentioned:  it  was  for  the  very  pur- 
pose of  baptism.  If  baptism  had  not  been  by 
immersion,  there  can  be  no  adequate  cause  alleged 
for  going  to  the  river.  Can  sober  judgment,  can 
candor,  can  common  sense  suppose,  that  if  a  hand- 
ful of  water  would  have  sufficed  for  baptism,  they 
would  have  gone  to  the  river?  Many  evasions  have 
been  alleged  to  get  rid  of  this  argument,  but  it  never 
can  be  fairly  answered."  Says  John  Calvin,  in 
his  comments  on  John  iii.  23,  and  Acts  viii.  38  : 
"  From  these  words  it  is  lawful  to  conclude  that 
baptism  was  celebrated  by  John  and  Christ  by  the 
submersion  of  the  whole  body"  Says  the  learned 
Michaelis,  the  "  baptism  of  John  was  by  immersion." 

31.  So  I  believe.  The  idea  of  going  to  a  river 
and  to  a  place  because  there  is  much  water ,  simply  to 

3 


50  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

get  enough  water  to  sprinkle,  is  inconsistent  and 
absurd. 

P.  It  does  seem  strange  and  inconsistent  that 
John,  Jesus,  and  his  disciples,  should  seek  a  river 
and  a  place  of  much  water,  merely  to  sprinkle. 
And  that  they  should  go  into  the  river,  simply  for  the 
same  purpose,  seems  equally  as  strange.  What  Dr. 
Doddridge  says  of  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  is  very 
applicable  here :.  "  It  would  be  very  unnatural  to 
suppose  that  they  went  down  to  the  water  merely 
that  Philip  might  take  up  a  little  water  in  his  hand 
to  pour  on  the  Eunuch." 

Of  Enon,  say  two  learned  expositors,  one  a  Con- 
gregationalist  and  the  other  a  Lutheran  (Dr.  Dod- 
dridge and  Prof.  Olshausen),  "  He  [John]  particu- 
larly chose  that  place  because  there  was  a  great 
quantity  of  water  there."  "  John  baptized  at  Enon 
because  there  was  deep  water  there,  convenient  for 
immersing." 

M.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says,  "  That  the  baptism 
of  John  was  by  plunging  the  body  *  *  *  seems 
to  appear  from  those  things  which  are  related  of 
him,"  *  *  *  "to  which  that  seems  to  be  par- 
allel, Acts  viii.  38  —  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went 
down  into  the  water,"  etc. 

P.  Mr.  Coleman,  in  his  "  Ancient  Christianity 
Exemplified,"  who  has  labored  very  hard  to  show 
that  sprinkling  is  right,  makes  the  following  admis- 
sions, among  others :  "  John    and  the  .disciples  of 


Fourth  Conversation.  51 

Jesus  baptized  in  Jordan."  "  The  baptism  of  John 
was  by  immersion." 

M.  But  many  of  our  friends  contend  that  the 
Greek  word  en  means  with. 

P.  I  know  they  do.  Let  us  look  at  it.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  words  with  water  ought  to  be 
translated  in  water.  With  is  a  mistranslation  of  the 
Greek  preposition  en.  "  This  word  means  in  and 
not  with,  and  is  rendered  by  the  preposition  in,  in 
almost  every  case  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  instances  in  which  this  word 
occurs  suffice  to  prove  what  I  say.  The  Greek 
word  en  occurs  nine  times  in  this  third  chapter  of 
Matthew,  and  it  is  rendered  in  the  English  version 
by  the  preposition  in  seven  times,  and  the  two 
exceptions  relate  to  baptism,  and  then  it  is  rendered 
'with.'  Now  either  it  is  rendered  wrongly  seven 
times  or  twice.  A  citation  of  the  passages  will 
enable  you  to  determine  whether  it  is  proper  to 
render  them  in  each  case  by  the  term  with  or  in. 
'  In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in 
the  wilderness/  v.  1 ;  '  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  v.  3;  '  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,'  v.  5; 
*  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves/ v.  9;  'whose 
fan  is  in  his  hand,'  v.  12;  'in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased,'  v.  17. 

"  Now  I  think  it  would  certainly  create  a  smile 
were  I  to  insist  that  the  Greek  word  en  should  be 
rendered  with  in  each  of  the  above  passages,  for,  in 
that  case  we  should  read,  '  with  those  days,'  '  with  the 


52  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

wilderness,'  'baptized  of  him  with  Jordan,' etc. ; 
and  yet,  I  ask,  why  is  it  not  just  as  proper  to  say, 
'  baptized  with  Jordan,  as  '  I  baptize  you  with  water,' 
t  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,'  when 
the  Greek  proposition  is  en  in  each  passage? 
Evidently  the  proper  translation  is,  '  I  indeed  bap- 
tize you  in  water — he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  " 

In  Matthew's  Gospel  the  word  en  occurs  two 
hundred  and  ninety  times.  Of  these,  it  is  translated 
two  hundred  and  twenty-two  times  by  in,  and  ten 
times  by  with. 

Dr.  George  Campbell  translated  it  "  baptize  in 
water." 

William  Tyndale,  the  martyr,  translated  it,  "  I 
baptize  you  in  water,  in  token  of  repentance." 

Dr.  Lange,  the  celebrated  Lutheran  scholar  of 
Germany,  whose  notes  have  been  recently  translated 
into  English  bv  the  distinguished  Dr.  Schaff,  also 
a  Lutheran,  makes  the  following  comments  on  Mat- 
thew, third  chapter:  "v.  6,  'And  were  baptized, 
immersed,  in  the  Jordan  confessing  their  sins.' 
Immersion  was  the  usual  mode  of  baptism  and 
symbol  of  repentance."  "  V.  11,  '  I  indeed  baptize 
you  in  (en)  water  (immersing  you  in  the  element  of 
water)  unto  repentance,'  '  He  shall  baptize  or 
immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  fire.'  He 
will  entirely  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
penitents,  or  if  impenitent,  he  will  overwhelm  you 
with  the  fire  of  judgment." 


Fourth  Conversation.  53 

P.  Suppose  I  were  to  tell  you  that  some  of  the 
citizens  of  Cincinnati  had  gone  to  the  Ohio  river  to 
be  baptized,  what  would  you  naturally  infer? 

M.  That  they  had  gone  to  be  immersed,  of 
course;  for  if  they  had  wanted  to  be  sprinkled,  they 
could  have  found  any  quantity  of  water  in  the  city 
for  that  purpose  without  going  to  the  river. 

P.  They  might  have  gone  to  the  river,  however, 
without  going  into  it,  although  the  supposition  would 
be  unfair.  But  if  I  were  to  tell  you  that  the  citi- 
zens of  Cincinnati  went  to  the  Ohio  river  to  be 
baptized,  and  were  baptized  in  the  river,  you  could 
have  no  reasonable  doubt  of  their  immersion. 

M.  Certainly  not.  That  would  be  a  common 
sense  conclusion. 

P.  Equally  plain  is  the  account  of  John's  bap- 
tism. They  went  to  be  baptized  in  the  river  Jor- 
dan. Baptize  means  to  immerse,  and  that  only. 
So  they  went  to  be  immersed  :  that  was  their  object. 
Then  we  are  told  they  were  baptized  in  the  river. 
Thus  they  went  to  the  river,  with  the  intention  of 
being  immersed,  and  they  were  immersed  according  to 
their  intention.  Yet  some  of  our  friends  will  have  it 
that  they  went  to,  and  then  into  the  river  to  be 
sprinkled !  And  a  few  will  not  allow  them  to  go 
into  the  river  at  all. 

M.  Yes,  and  invent  a  hyssop  branch  for  John  to 
sprinkle  them  with.  Why  don't  they  use  the  branch 
of  hyssop  for  sprinkling  now  ? 

P.     Again :  if  I  were  to  tell  you  that  the  Eev. 


54  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Mr.  A.  was  baptizing  in,  or  at,  a  certain  place,  "be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there,"  what  would  you 
suppose  governed  his  action  in  going  there? 

M.  The  "  much  water"  of  course.  That  is  the 
reason  assigned.  As  much  water  is  necessary  for 
immersion,  and  not  for  sprinkling,  he  went  there  to 
immerse ;  and  as  he  was  baptizing  "  because  there 
was  much  water  there,"  common  sense  tells  me  he 
was  immersing. 

P.  Some  of  the  opposers  of  immersion,  how- 
ever, have  very  fertile  and  fanciful  imaginations. 
They  have  "  the  inventive  faculties  strongly  devel- 
oped ;"  and  are  "  great"  on  curious  contrivances 
and  denying  the  Scriptures.  One  of  them  says, 
"  Enon  was  not  a  place  of  much  water."  Another 
says,  "  It  was  the  quality  and  not  the  quantity  [of 
water]  that  determined  John." 

31.  They  both  contradict  the  Bible.  It  says  there 
was  much  water  there.  It  is  the  quantity,  and  not  the 
quality  of  the  water,  the  text  mentions.  Why  did 
not  the  quality  influence  the  disciples?  The  waters 
of  Jordan  were  good  enough  in  quality  for  them.  If 
John  preferred  Enon  to  Jordan  on  account  of  the 
quality  of  the  water;  how  is  it  that  Jesus,  who 
"  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John," 
should  continue  baptizing  in  Jordan  f  Did  not  Christ 
and  the  disciples  have  as  great  a  liking  for  pure 
water  as  John  ? 

P.  Certainly  they  had.  And  "  if  it  were  said 
that  a  man  had  erected  a  '  merchant  mill '  on  a  cer- 


Fourth  Conversation,  55 

tain  stream  because  there  was  much  water  there,  most 
persons  would  say  that  he  wanted  much  water  for 
purposes  of  grinding."  But  some  of  our  ministers 
would  say,  "  You  totally  misconceive  the  man's 
object.  He  has  built  his  mill  on  that  stream,  not 
because  he  needs  the  water  to  turn  his  machinery; 
but  that  those  who  '  encamp '  at  the  mill  may  have 
water  to  drink,  and  perform  their  '  daily  ablutions,' 
and  that  their  '  beasts '  may  drink  also !" 

A  Congregational  writer  says  :  "  The  water  was 
not  necessary  for  baptizing,  but  for  drinking,  ordi- 
nary washings,  cooking  —  necessary  not  only  for 
men,  but  asses  and  camels." 

M.  [Indignantly.]  That  is  enough  of  such  non- 
sense. They  are  determined  to  have  it  every  way 
but  the  way  the  Bible  teaches.  And  then  to  think 
of  the  "  asses  and  camels!"  He  could  not  let  the 
text  alone  as  it  reads,  without  thrusting  them  in ! 
As  if  John  had  no  other  object  in  baptizing  than  to 
select  a  place  for  the  accommodation  of  the  asses 
and  camels!  It  is  astonishing  how  little  common 
sense  some  doctors  of  divinity  have !  And  they 
think  we  know  no  better  than  that ! 

P.  "  I  can  prove  to  you,"  said  a  wag  one  day  to 
me,  "  that  a  man  may  baptize  in  a  river,  and  not 
baptize  in  water."  "  How  so  ?"  I  inquired.  "  Does 
not  the  Bible  say  John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan  V* 
"  Certainly."  "  Well,  the  Presbyterian  author  of 
*  Bible  Baptism '  says,  *  The  Bible  never  speaks  of 


56  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

baptizing  in  water !'  [P.  5.]  So  John  must  have 
baptized  in  a  river  without  water !" 

I  once  thought  the  Baptists  paraded  the  poorest 
arguments  and  illustrations  they  could  find  in  the 
writings  of  our  authors  against  us.  But  I  find  they 
can  do  no  better.  They  use  the  best  we  can  furnish 
them,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  complain.  I  know, 
says  one,  of  a  distinguished  Presbyterian  divine  who 
maintains  that  John  sat  in  a  canoe  in  the  middle  of 
the  river  Jordan,  and  that,  as  the  people  waded  in 
from  either  bank,  he  scooped  up  a  little  water,  and 
poured  it  on  their  heads.  I  once  heard  a  minister 
preaching  on  John's  baptism.  He  said  that  Pales- 
tine contained  six  millions  of  inhabitants,  and  that 
over  three  millions  went  to  the  Jordan  to  be  bap- 
tized !  And  as  it  was  impossible  for  John  to  immerse 
them,  he  had  them  arrayed  along  the  river  bank,  and 
sent  him  along  the  front,  dipping  a  branch  of  hys- 
sop in  the  water,  and  then  sprinkling  the  multitude^ 
Nicely  done,  was  it  not  ?  A  fine  theory,  woven  in 
the  loom  of  his  imagination ;  and  it  is  almost  a  pity 
to  spoil  it.  But  yet  I  could  not  help  wondering 
where  he  found  the  three  millions,  and  the  sprink- 
ling in  the  Bible ;  and  how  it  could  be  said  of  Jesus 
that  "  he  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than 
John  !" 

John  baptized  over  three  millions,  says  the  Metho- 
dist, and  Jesus  more  than  John,  says  the  Bible;  so 
between  them   both,  they  baptized  more  disciples 


Fourth  Conversation.  57 

than  there  were  inhabitants  in  all  the  land  of  Pales- 
tine, men,  women,  and  children  counted  in ! 

31.  How  ridiculous :  and  yet  it  seems  to  be  a 
favorite  illustration  with  some  of  our  preachers. 
But  it  is  certain  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  Judea 
were  not  baptized  by  John. 

P.  Yes ;  the  evident  meaning  of  Matt.  iii.  5,  6, 
is,  that  people  from  all  classes,  and  all  places  around, 
came  to  John  to  be  baptized. 

That  John's  baptism  was  by  immersion  there  can 
be  no  doubt :  that  is  evident  from  the  meaning  of 
the  word  baptize.  And  when  God  sent  John  to 
baptize,  he  sent  him  to  immerse.  "  God  gave  him," 
says  Matthew  Henry,  "  both  his  mission  and  his 
message,  his  credentials  and  his  instructions."  He 
did  not  leave  the  mode  discretionary  with  John.  He 
sent  him  to  do  a  specific  act,  and  employed  a  word 
with  a  definite  meaning.  Can  we  suppose  that  God 
would  use  a  word  with  a  varietv  of  meanings,  leav- 
ing  it  to  John  to  conjecture  how  he  was  to  baptize? 
No ;  and  thus  what  God  intended  we  see  clearly 
from  the  word  he  used,  which  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza, 
and  a  host  of  learned  men,  say  means  to  immerse. 

Thus  John,  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  God, 
and  with  a  definite  idea  of  the  language  employed, 
baptized  in  the  river  of  Jordan. 

Now  let  me  show  you  that  John's  baptism  was  the 
same  as  that  practiced  by  the  disciples  in  the  presence 
of  Christ,  both  in  mode  and  object. 

3* 


58  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

M.  I  have  no  objection,  though  you  have  a  hard 
task  before  you. 

P.  Let  us  see.  Tertullian,  one  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  who  wrote  in  the  Christian  era  204,  says: 
"Neither  is  there  any  difference  between  them  who 
John  dipped  in  Jordan,  and  those  whom  Peter  dip- 
ped in  the  Tiber."  As  Christ  was  baptized  by  John 
in  Jordan,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he 
would  be  immersed,  and  then  authorize  or  counten- 
ance sprinkling  by  his  disciples.  And  then,  as  John 
was  baptizing  in  Enon,  u  because  there  was  much 
water  there,"  and  the  disciples  in  Jordan  at  the  same 
time,  under  the  authority  of  Jesus,  it  is  not  possible 
that  one  party  would  be  immersing,  and  the  other 
sprinkling.     What  one  did,  so  did  the  other. 

M.  Are  you  certain  that  John  and  the  disciples 
were  both  baptizing  at  the  same  time?  For  if  they 
wTere,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  mode  of 
one  must  have  been  the  mode  of  the  other ;  nay, 
may  I  not  say,  that  the  object  of  one  must  have  been 
the  object  of  the  other.  I  should  like  to  see  the 
proof. 

P.  I  see  you  anticipate;  but  here  is  the  proof : 
"  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into 
the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them, 
and  baptized.  And  John  was  also  baptizing  in 
Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water 
there."     John  iii.  23. 

M.  I  remember  the  passage  now;  but  I  never 
saw  it  in  the  light  you  apply  it  before. 


Fotirth  Conversation.  59 

P.  Now  what  kind  of  baptism  was  this  by  Christ  ? 
If  Christian  baptism,  as  some  say,  was  only  institu- 
ted after  the  resurrection,  what  can  we  call  this  bap- 
tism? Was  Christ  under  the  legal  dispensation? 
If  you  say  he  baptized  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, so  did  John.  If  under  the  legal,  you  deny 
the  Scriptures.  Both  baptized  at  the  same  time. 
"Was  John  baptizing  in  opposition  to  Christ,  in  a 
different  way,  and  with  a  different  object?  You 
can  not  say  that,  or  Christ  would  have  condemned 
instead  of  approved  John  :  certainly  he  would  have 
done  this,  if  John's  practice  and  object  had  been  in 
opposition  to  his.  How  could  there  be  two  different 
baptisms  practiced  at  the  same  time?  Or  if  you  say 
that  the  Saviour  baptized  in  the  same  wa}>  that  John 
did,  and  then  instituted  a  different  mode  with  a  dif- 
ferent object  afterward,  then  were  the  mode  and 
object  of  John's  baptism  and  his  own  alike  wrong. 
So  in  denying  the  mode  and  object  of  John's  bap- 
tism, you  deny  the  mode  and  object  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism ;  and  have  two  opposing  parties  baptizing  at 
the  same  time  in  two  different  ways,  and  with  dif- 
ferent objects. 

Mr.  Coleman  says :  "  The  truth  seems  to  be  that 
our  Lord,  on  entering  upon  his  ministry,  permitted 
the  continuance  of  John's  baptism  as  harmonizing 
with  his  own  designs.  The  import  of  the  rite  was 
the  same,  whether  administered  by  John  himself  or 
the  disciples  of  Jesus."     And  yet  he  affirms,  with- 


60  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

out  proof,  that  Christian  baptism,  so  called,  was  not 
instituted  until  after  the  resurrection  ! 

31.  I  see  no  way  of  answering  your  arguments, 
or  avoiding  your  conclusions.  John's  and  Christ's 
baptism  must  have  been  the  same  in  mode  and  object. 
But  how  comes  it,  that  some  of  our  writers  say  that 
Christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  until  after  the 
resurrection  ? 

P.  On  the  same  principle  that  they  make  other 
curious  and  contradictory  statements — without  au- 
thority from  the  Bible.  Says  one :  "  The  legal 
dispensation,  *  *  *  came  to  its  close  only  in  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  after  which 
Christian  baptism  was  instituted."  Now  see  how 
he  contradicts  Jesus,  who  says:  "  The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John;  since  that  time  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man.  presseth 
into  it."  —  Luke  xvi.  16. 

Christ  never  instituted  baptism  in  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  that  word.  If  he  did,  I  should  like  to  have 
it  pointed  out  in  the  Bible;  for  I  can  not  find  it 
there.  His  baptism  was  the  same  as  John's,  at  least 
in  mode.  He  commanded  his  disciples  to  go  and  bap- 
tize, and  to  teach  the  people  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  he  had  commanded  ;  but  there  is  not  the 
shadow  of  a  warrant  for  saying  that  he  then  instituted 
baptism.  Instituted  means  established,  appointed, 
founded,  enacted.  These  meanings  are  not  found 
in  the  commission.  Baptism  was  instituted  and 
practiced  by  John  and  his  disciples,  before  Christ 


Fourth  Conversation,  61 

commanded  the  Apostles  to  go  and  baptize.  When 
he  commanded  them  to  go  and  baptize,  he  simply 
ordered  and  directed  them  to  continue  doing  what 
had  been  done  by  Him — not  to  do  a  new  thing,  but 
to  do  it  more  extensively.  They  were  commanded 
to  go  and  baptize  all  nations,  the  Gentiles  as  well  as 
the  Jews.  He  had  baptized,  and  they  must  con- 
tinue baptizing. 

Dr.  Theophilus  C.  Storr,  Lutheran  Professor  of 
Theology,  in  the  University  of  Tubingen,  says: 
"When  the  Lord  commanded  that  disciples  should 
be  baptized  (Alatt.  xxviii.  19),  the  Apostles,  through 
those  things  which  had  gone  before,  could  have 
understood  nothing  else  than  that  men  should  be 
immersed  in  water ;  nor  did  they,  in  truth,  under- 
stand any  thing  else  but  immersion,  as  is  evident 
from  the  testimony  of  the  sacred  writings." 

M.  Let  me  read  the  commission,  brother  E. 
[Reads :] 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." — 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

It  must  be  as  you  say.  I  see  no  authority  for  a 
new  ordinance  in  that. 

P.  Certainly  not;  and  if  Christ  had  instituted  a 
new  ordinance,  with  a  different  meaning,  after  his 
resurrection,  we  should  certainly  have  had  some 
record  of  it.     Can  common  sense  believe  that  our 


62  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Lord  would  institute  another  ordinance,  and  the 
sacred  writers  say  nothing  about  it  —  that  they 
would  have  remained  silent  about  such  an  important 
fact  ?  Thus  it  is  self-evident  that  he  did  not  insti- 
tute a  new  ordinance  :  and  when  he  commanded  his 
disciples  to  go  and  baptize,  it  was  simply  that  they 
were  to  go  and  continue  doing  that  which  they  had 
been  doing  before  under  his  authority.  They  knew 
what  he  meant  by  baptizing.  He  had  defined  his 
meaning  of  baptism,  by  being  himself  immersed. 

Again :  If  Christ  instituted  a  new  ordinance,  the 
old  one  must  have  been  imperfect.  Thus  you 
charge  him  with  using  an  imperfect  ordinance.  The 
baptism  by  Christ's  disciples,  you  must  say,  was 
either  right  or  wrong,  lawful  or  unlawful.  If  right, 
why  institute  another  ?  If  wrong,  you  charge  the 
Saviour  with  unlawful  things. 

According  to  our  friends,  the  Pedobaptists,  there 
were  three  different  dispensations  and  kinds  of 
baptisms. 

1.  John's,  sanctioned  by  Christ. 

2.  The  disciples',  under  the  authority  of  Christ. 

3.  That  instituted  by  Christ  after  his  resurrection. 
Thus  you  see  how  ridiculous  we  make  ourselves 

in  order  to  destroy  the  force  of  John's  baptism,  and 
to  foist  pouring  and  sprinkling  on  the  people,  con- 
trary to  the  common  sense  teachings  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Why,  John  Calvin  was  compelled  to  say : 
"  It  is  very  certain  that  the  ministry  of  John  was 
precisely  the  same  as  committed  to  the  Apostles. 


Fourth  Conversation,  63 

For  their  baptism  was  not  different,  though  it  was 
administered  by  different  hands;  but  the  sameness 
of  their  doctrine  shows  their  baptism  to  have  been 
the  same." 

M.  I  must  concede  this  point  also.  I  see  no 
authority  for  saving  that  Christian  baptism  was 
instituted  by  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection. 
Strange  how  we  get  notions  into  our  heads  without 
having  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  them  ! 

P.  Yes,  very  strange.  Surely,  if  Jesus  did  insti- 
tute a  new  ordinance  of  baptism  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, it  would  be  easy  to  prove  it.  Let  our  friends 
give  us  the  proof,  and  not  depend  on  bare  asser- 
tions. They  say  he  was  immersed,  and  authorized 
immersion  by  his  disciples;  now  let  them  show  us 
that  he  instituted  a  new  ordinance  with  a  different 
mode  of  administration.     Give  us  the  proof. 

I  will  now,  in  conclusion,  give  you  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  proof  from  the  Scriptures,  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  Christian  baptism. 

1.  John's  baptism  was  ordained  by  God.  John 
i.  33. 

2.  God  sent  John  to  baptize.     John  i.  6,  33. 

3.  The  ministry  of  John  was  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.     Mark  i.  1. 

4.  The  law  and  the  prophets,  or  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, ended  at  the  coming  of  John.  Then  the  kin£- 
dom  of  God,  the  new  dispensation,  was  preached. 
Luke  xvi.  16;  Matt.  xi.  13. 


64  Conversations  on  JBaptism. 

5.  Christ  approved  and  sanctioned  John's  bap- 
tism, and  was  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan.  Matt, 
xi.  11. 

6.  John  and  Christ  baptized  at  the  same  time. 
John  iii.  23. 

7.  John  preached  repentance,  warned  the  people 
to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  taught  them  to 
believe  on  Christ.     Acts  xix.  4. 

8.  The  Gospel  kingdom  commenced  with  the 
preaching  of  John.     Luke  xvi.  16 ;  Matt.  xi.  12, 13. 

9.  John  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Luke 
i.  15. 

Can  any  testimony  be  clearer  and  more  conclu- 
sive ?  If  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism, 
what  is  it  ?  If  he  did  not  preach  the  Gospel,  pray 
who  does? 

M.  It  is  certainly  a  strong  and  formidable  array 
of  proof,  incontrovertible  and  conclusive  to  my 
mind.  For  as  John  was  sent  by  God,  being  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  as  his  ministry  was  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  as  he 
baptized  Jesus,  and  preached  repentance  and  faith 
in  him ; — it  must  have  been  a  strange  kind  of  bap- 
tism if  it  was  not  Gospel  baptism ! 


Fifth     Conyef^sation. 


The  Baptism  of  Christ 


'EING  the  subject  for  this  evening's  Con- 
versation, Mr.  E.  commenced  by  saying : 
"  Let  us  now  look,  brother  C,  at  the  his- 
tory o'f  the  baptism  of  Christ.  Having 
proved  that  the  mode  of  John's  baptism  was  immer- 
sion, of  course  Jesus  was  immersed." 

Methodist.  Yes;  but  there  are  some  things 
connected  with  Christ's  baptism  that  I  do  not  fully 
understand.  So  I  had  rather  you  would  examine 
the  whole  narrative,  if  you  have  to  introduce  the 
mode  of  his  baptism. 

P.  It  will  afford  me  pleasure;  for  there  is  some- 
thing beautiful  and  impressive  in  the  narrative  as 
recorded  by  the  Evangelists.  Let  us  read  the  Scrip- 
tures. "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan 
unto  John  to  be  baptized  of  him.  But  John  forbade 
him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and 
comest  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jesus,  answering,  said 
unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now;    for  thus  it  be- 


66  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

cometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness.  Then  he 
suffered  him. — Matt.  iii.  13.  [Thus]  Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John 
in  Jordan. — Mark  i.  9.  And  Jesus,  when  he  was 
baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water. — Matt, 
iii.  16.  And,  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water 
[Mark  i.  10],  and  praying,  the  heaven  was  opened, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape  like 
a  dove  upon  him,  and  a  voice  came  from  heaven, 
which  said,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son ;  in  thee  I 
am  well  pleased.  And  Jesus  himself  began  to  be 
about  thirty  years  of  age." — Luke  iii.  21-23. 

Here  you  will  observe,  1.  That  Matthew  says 
Jesus  went  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  to  be  baptized 
by  John :  and  Mark  says,  he  was  baptized  in  Jor- 
dan. 2.  Matthew  says  that  Jesus  when  he  was 
baptized  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water :  and 
Mark,  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  etc. 

Can  language  be  plainer?  Can  the  narrative  be 
made  more  simple,  clear,  or  more  readily  under- 
stood ?  Can  an  action  be  more  definitely  expressed  ? 
Need  there  be  any  reasonable  doubts  on  the  subject? 
Jesus  first  goes  to  Jordan,  then  goes  into  Jordan 
and  is  baptized,  and  then  straightway  comes  up  out  of 
the  water:  or,  as  Dr.  Doddridge,  the  Congregational 
expositor,  says :  "  ascended  out  of  the  water  to  the 
banks  of  Jordan." 

M.  But,  you  know,  some  of  our  friends  say  that 
it  means  at,  and  not  in,  Jordan. 

P.     Yes;  and  for  many  a  year  they  misled  me 


Fifth  Conversation.  67 

with  this  worse  than  a  quibble,  for  it  contradicts  the 
Scriptures.  Suppose  a  neighbor  of  ours,  knowing 
the  object  you  had  in  coming  to  my  house  this 
evening,  was  to  say  to  another  neighbor:  "Mr.  C. 
went  to  the  house  of  Mr.  E.  last  night  to  investigate 
the  subject  of  baptism;"  would  not  common  sense 
infer  justly  that  you  came  into  the  house?  Your 
object  governed  your  action.  You  came  to  investi- 
gate, and  you  came  into  my  house.  But  you  might 
not  have  come  in  after  all.  You  might  have  stood 
hour  after  hour  conversing  with  me  at  the  gate; 
and  I  might  have  carried  out  the  lamp  and  the  many 
books  we  have  been  examining !  But  there  is  no 
such  probability  about  Christ's  example.  He  went 
to  be  baptized,  which  means  immersion.  He  went 
to  Jordan,  went  into  Jordan,  and  came  up  out  of  the 
waters  of  Jordan.  His  object  was  immersion,  or  he 
would  not  have  gone  to  Jordan  ;  and  his  action  was 
immersion,  or  he  would  not  have  gone  into  Jordan. 
His  object  determined  his  action. 

M.  Yes,  that  is  clear.  These  "might  have 
beens"  are  great  arguments  with  the  opposers  of 
immersion.  They  seem  to  prefer  them  to  a  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord."  It  appears  strange  that  some  will 
apply  common  sense  to  every  thing  else  but  to  this, 
a  scriptural  and  common  sense  view  of  the  baptism 
of  Christ.  Thus  far  we  agree  on  the  mode  of  Christ's 
baptism.  But  was  not  his  baptism  purification  and 
consecration  for  the  priesthood  ?     Did  he  not  come 


68  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

to  fulfill  all  righteousness;  and  was  not  this  required 
of  a  priest  ? 

P.  Certainly  not.  "  Purify,"  says  Webster,  "  is 
to  cleanse  from  pollution  ceremonially."  What 
pollution  had  Christ  to  be  cleansed  of  by  John? 
He  was  free  from  sin,  pure  and  holy.  To  say  that 
he  was  purified,  is  to  declare  he  was  polluted — a 
sinner.  And  to  say  that  the  office  of  John  was  a 
purifier,  is  to  say  that  he  cleansed  from  sin.  Again: 
if  baptism  was  purification,  then  you  make  baptism 
a  saving  ordinance.  So  that  insuperable  objections 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  notion  that  Jesus  was  puri- 
fied, and  that  John's  baptism  was  purification. 

Again :  if  you  say  that  baptism  was  only  figura- 
tive or  emblematical  of  the  purification  of  the  soul 
Dy  the  blood  of  Christ,  from  sin,  then,  I  ask  you, 
how  could  the  emblem  apply  to  Christ  ?  He  was 
not  guilty  of  the  thing  signified — he  had  no  sins  to 
wash  away. 

M.  Yes,  I  believe  all  that.  Christ  had  no  sins 
to  be  purified  from — he  was  not  a  sinner.  But 
could  not  purification  refer  literally  to  the  body  ? 

P.  No,  not  in  this  case.  If  John's  baptism  was 
the  purification  of  the  body,  why  did  he  require 
repentance  and  faith  ?  These  have  to  do  with  the 
mind.  Again  :  if  it  was  spiritual  or  emblematical 
purification,  how  could  it,  as  seen  above,  apply  to 
Christ?  And,  lastly,  if  to  purify  is  to  cleanse  from 
pollution,  then  was  the  baptism  of  John  a  purifica- 
tion from  moral  defilement,  a  saving  ordinance.     If 


Fifth  Conversation.  69 

you  say  it  was  "legal  or  ceremonial  mi  cleanness, 
which  disqualified  a  person  for  sacred  services  or 
for  common  intercourse  with  the  people,"  then,  I 
ask  you,  how  it  could  apply  to  Christ,  for  be  was 
without  spot  or  blemish? 

But,  you  ask,  was  not  Christ  consecrated  for  a 
priest,  and  at  baptism  inducted  into  the  priesthood? 
To  this  again  I  answer  no. 

M.  You  are  very  positive.  Where  is  your  proof? 
I  hear  our  preachers  talk  so  much  about  it,  surely 
there  must  be  something  in  it? 

P.  Well,  have  you  not  heard  them  talk  as  much 
about  sprinkling  being  baptism  ?  and  you  see  how 
much  truth  there  is  in  that.  But  here  is  the  proof. 
Are  you  not  aware  that  the  priesthood  was  confined 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi;  and  that  the  laws  of  Moses 
concerning  the  priesthood  had  exclusive  reference 
to  that  tribe? 

M.     No ;  I  was  not  aware  of  that. 

P.  But  so  it  is:  and  Christ  not  being  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi,  forever  settles  the  fact  that  he  was  not  bap- 
tized into  the  priesthood.  Paul  says :  "  It  is  evident 
that  our  Lord  sprang*  out  of  Judah ;  of  which  tribe 
Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  the  priesthood." — 
Heb.  vii.  14. 

31.  That  settles  the  fact.  I  can't  go  behind  these 
emphatic  words. 

P.  Again:  the  order  of  the  priesthood  was 
changed.  Christ  was  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedek,  and  not  after  the  order  of  Levi,  which  you 


70  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

can  see  by  reading  Hebrews  vii.  11.  Now  if  you  can 
point  out  in  the  Bible  that  Melchizedek  was  a  Levit- 
ical  priest,  and  was  purified  by  baptism  into  the 
priestly  office,  you  will  do  more  than  all  Biblical 
scholars  have  ever  done! 

The  law  of  consecration  for  the  priesthood  you 
will  find  in  Exodus,  29th  chapter,  and  Leviticus,  8th 
chapter,  as  given  by  Moses.  Please  turn  and  read. 
[Reads.]  Thus,  you  see,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  evi- 
dence that  Christ  complied  with  this  law  of  conse- 
cration at  baptism.  If  it  had  been  applicable  to  him, 
he  would  certainly  have  fulfilled  it,  for  he  came  to 
fulfill  the  law.  Besides,  he  never  claimed  to  be,  and 
never  pretended  to  exercise  the  functions  of  a  priest. 

The  baptism  of  the  Saviour  did  not  take  place 
under  the  law.  There  was  no  command  of  the  kind 
in  the  law.  It  was  an  institution  founded  b}7  John 
the  Baptist,  or  rather  by  him  who  "  sent  him  to  bap- 
tize," and  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  ordinan- 
ces enjoined  by  Moses.  The  state  of  things  then 
existing  was  altogether  peculiar,  in  a  religious  point 
of  view.  John  was  acting  under  the  authority  of  a 
special  commission.  He  was  the  "messenger"  of 
Jehovah,  the  "prophet"  of  the  Highest,  sent  "in 
the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias."  Mai.  iii.  1;  iv.  5; 
Luke  i.  17.  Our  Lord  recognized  and  honored  his 
mission,  and  in  yielding  to  be  baptized  by  him, 
though  he  had  no  sins  to  confess,  exemplified  that 
perfect  holiness  which  was  necessary  to  the  comple- 
tion of  his  own  work.     Obedience  to  John's  baptism 


Fifth  Conversation.  71 

was  at  that  time  a  test  of  character ;  had  the  Saviour 
neglected  it,  he  could  not  have  affirmed  that  he  "  did 
always  the  things  which  pleased "  his  Heavenly 
Father.  He  obeyed — "and  lo,  the  heavens  were 
opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  like  a  dove,  saying,  '  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.'  "     Matt.  iii.  16, 17. 

M.  From  reading  the  law  of  consecration,  and 
the  narrative  of  Christ's  baptism,  I  see  no  way  of 
avoiding  your  conclusion, 

P.  Nor  can  any  one  who  fairly  examines  the 
Scriptures.  But  if  Christ  had  been  desirous  of  offi- 
ciating as  a  priest,  he  would  not  have  chosen  John 
to  induct  him  into  the  priest's  office.  We  have  not 
the  slightest  proof  that  John  was  ever  consecrated  himself 
to  that  work.     So  you  see  all  Scripture  is  against  you. 

M.  So  I  see.  And  here  I  have  been  misled  by 
the  teachings  of  our  preachers  again.  I  have  heard 
them  talk  so  much  about  Jesus  being  consecrated 
for  the  priesthood,  that  I  have  taken  their  word  for 
it,  without  examining  the  Scriptures.  After  this  I 
will  try  and  read  the  Word  of  God  more;  and 
depend  less  on  the  teachings  of  men. 

P.  That's  a  good  resolution ;  one  that  I  wish  I 
had  practiced  more  myself. 

M.  But  what  do  you  say  Christ  was  baptized 
for?  It  was  certainly  not  for  the  priesthood,  nor  for 
repentance;  for  "being  free  from  sin,  he  could  not 
repent ;  and  he  needed  no  forgiveness,  regeneration, 
or  newness  of  life." 


72  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

P.  There  are  various  opinions  with  regard  to  it; 
but  I  will  answer  your  question  for  myself,  as  far  as 
I  can.  After  the  most  thorough  investigation  of  the 
subject  I  have  been  able  to  make,  I  have  arrived  at 
the  following  conclusions: 

1.  Christ's  baptism  was,  as  he  tells  us,  "  to  fulfill 
all  righteousness,"  or  a  righteous  obligation  and 
requirement.  Baptism  was  an  ordinance  appoii.ted 
by  God  for  the  new,  or  Christian,  dispensation. 
Hence  the  ministry  of  John,  who  "  was  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  "  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  Mark  i.  1.  John 
had  a  divine  and  special  warrant  from  heaven  to  bap- 
tize, for  he  was  sent  by  God.  Christ  knowing  all 
this,  he,  to  show  his  obedience  to  the  divine  require- 
ment, came  to  John  to  be  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan. 
John  felt  his  inferiority  to  Christ,  and  that  he  needed 
to  be  baptized  by  him,  instead  of  baptizing  the 
Master,  and  hesitated  to  comply.  Then  Jesus  replied : 
"  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now ;  for  thus  it  beoometh  us  to 
fulfill  all  righteousness."  And  he  baptized  Him. 
Thus  was  the  law  of  baptism  fulfilled  by  Christ. 

2.  Baptism,  we  have  stated,  was  instituted  for  the 
church  of  Christ  —  a  new  ordinance  for  a  new  dis- 
pensation. Now,  as  baptism  was  required  of  the 
Head,  so  it  is  of  the  body,  the  church.  And  as 
Jesus,  the  Head,  was  baptized,  so  must  the  church, 
his  body,  be  baptized.  And  thus  the  Head  and  the 
body  are  alike  buried  in  baptism. 

3.  Christ  was  baptized  as  our  example,  or  as  an 


Fifth  Conversation.  73 

example  of  obedience  to  the  command  of  God;  and 
thus  has  become  our  pattern  in  baptism.  Thus,  says 
an  eminent  Presbyterian  commentator,  (Dr.  Scott,) 
"  We  never  find  that  Jesus  spake  of  himself  in  the 
plural  number;  and  it  must  therefore  be  allowed 
that  he  meant  John  also,  and  all  the  servants  of  God 
in  a  subordinate  sense.  It  became  Christ  as  our 
surety  and  example  to  perfectly  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness; it  becomes  us  to  walk  in  all  the  command- 
ments and  ordinances  of  God,  without  exception, 
and  to  attend  on  every  divine  institution,  as  long  as 
it  continues  in  force.  Thus  far  Christ's  example  is 
obligatory." 

"  The  pattern  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  says 
Mr.  Polhill,  "  is  more  to  me  than  all  the  human 
wisdom  in  the  world." 

M.  So  it  should  be  to  every  Christian.  If  we 
love  Ilim,  we  shall  keep  his  commandments. 

P.  Yes;  and  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all 
that  our  Saviour  requires  of  us.  He  has  said,  "  fol- 
low me."  Why  follow  the  devices  of  men  ?  He  is 
our  great  Captain  and  Leader — our  divine  Exemp- 
lar: and  here  he  has  given  us  an  impressive  and 
beautiful  example  to  follow  —  an  example  of  bap- 
tism. He  was  immersed,  and  that  is  what  he  meant 
by  baptism ;  and  he  requires  that  we  be  immersed. 
The  act  which  he  performed  is  the  same  that  he 
demands  of  us.  We  need  not  hesitate  about  mode, 
for  we  see  what  that  was  by  his  example.  And  then, 
it  is  a  distinguished  privilege,  and  a  great  honor,  to 

4 


74  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

be  "buried  with  him  in  baptism ;"  and  should  prompt 
us  to  gratitude  and  obedience.  Certainly  no  such 
consolation  and  approval  of  conscience  can  arise 
from  being  sprinkled.  No  wonder  the  Baptists  can 
rejoice  at  their  baptism,  and  sing, 

"  "With  willing  hearts  we  tread 
The  path  the  Saviour  trod  ; 
"We  love  the  example  of  our  Head, 
The  glorious  Lamb  of  God !" 

It  is  for  you  and  me,  my  brother,  to  be  obedient 
to  his  commandment,  and  follow  Him  as  our  exam- 
ple of  baptism. 

"  Thou  hast  said,  exalted  Jesus, 
Take  thy  cross  and  follow  me : 
Shall  the  word  with  terror  seize  us  ? 
Shall  we  from  the  burden  flee  ? 

Lord,  111  take  it, 
And  rejoicing  follow  thee !" 

4.  The  baptism  of  our  Lord  was,  also,  emblemati- 
cal of  his  burial  and  resurrection.  So  the  Apostle 
Paul  understood  it.  To  the  Romans  he  says : 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have 
been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.'* 


Fifth  Conversation,  75 

—  Rom.  vi.  3-5.  "Buried  with  him  in  baptism." — 
Col.  ii.  12. 

Thus,  says  Dr.  Macknight,  "Jesus  submitted  to 
be  baptized,  that  is,  buried  under  the  water  by  John, 
and  to  be  raised  out  of  it  again,  as  an  emblem  of  his 
future  death  and  resurrection." 

The  Lord's  Supper  shows  us  in  emblem  the  broken 
body  and  shed  blood  of  Christ ;  but  leaves  the  church 
only  in  possession  of  his  dead,  unburied  body.  Im- 
mersion shows  us  his  burial,  resurrection,  and  ascen- 
sion. Thus  in  the  two  ordinances  we  have  united 
and  manifested  the  great  and  solemn  facts  in  the 
life  of  Christ  our  atonement. 

The  ordinances  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism 
stand  out  as  two  grand  pillars  of  truth,  enduring  as 
long  as  time  shall  last,  erected  by  the  infinite  wisdom, 
power,  and  goodness  of  God,  appealing  to  all  ages 
to  come  as  witnesses  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  Christian  religion  —  Christ  crucified.  The  Lord's 
Supper  shows  forth  his  crucifixion  and  death  until 
his  coming  again  —  his  shed  blood  and  broken  body; 
and  Baptism  his  burial  and  resurrection  from  the 
grave.  And  whenever  the  Supper  is  partaken  of 
there  comes  through  it  to  the  ear  of  faith  the  voice 
of  Jesus,  saying,  "  This  do  ye  in  remembrance  of  me." 
And  then  at  baptism,  faith  not  only  sees  Christ  going 
down  into,  and  coming  up  out  of,  the  river  of  Jordan, 
but  also  going  down  into  the  grave,  and  coming  out 
as  a  Conqueror,  rising  in  majesty  and  glory,  the 
Lord  our  Righteousness,  triumphant  over  the  power 


j6  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

of  death.  Thus,  when  the  Christian  partakes  of  the 
Supper,  and  follows  Christ  in  baptism,  he  presents 
to  the  world  two  great  and  incontrovertible  argu- 
ments in  proof  of  a  crucified  and  risen  Saviour. 

M.  What  is  the  opinion  of  the  learned  on  the 
mode  of  Christ's  baptism? 

P.  The  Apostle  Paul  says  it  was  a  burial  — 
"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism"  — 
"buried  with  him  in  baptism." — Rom.  vi.  3,  5;  Col. 
ii.  12.  The  learned  have  almost  universally  conceded 
it  to  have  been  an  immersion.  We  might  fill  a  small 
volume  with  the  proof.     Thus 

"  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  in  Jordan." 


Sixth    C 


CONVERSATION. 


The  Baptism  of  Paul. 


HE  example  of  Paul  being  set  apart  for 
this  evening's  investigation,  Mr.  C.  com- 
menced by  reading  Romans  vi.  3,  5: 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection." Also,  Colossians  ii.  12  :  "  Buried  with  him 
in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,"  etc. 

P.  Thus  Paul  speaks  for  himself,  and  tells  us 
that  he  was  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  as  were 
also  the  Romans  and  Colossians,  no  doubt  a  goodly 
number.  "This  passage,"  [Rom.  vi.  4.]  say  two 
eminent  Episcopalian  writers,  "  can  not  be  under- 
stood unless  it  is  borne  in  mind,  that  the  primitive 


78  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

baptism  was  by  immersion."  John  "Wesley  has  to 
admit  that  there  is  an  allusion  here  to  the  ancient 
manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion.  And  Neander, 
the  celebrated  church  historian,  says :  "  When  St. 
Paul  says  that  through  baptism  we  are  buried  with 
Christ,  and  rise  again  with  him,  he  unquestionably 
alludes  to  the  symbol  of  dipping  into,  and  rising 
again  out  of  the  water." 

Says  Dr.  Chalmers,  in  his  Lectures  on  Romans, 
p.  152 :  "  The  original  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tism is  immersion,  and  though  we  regard  it  as  a 
point  of  indifferency,  whether  the  ordinance  so 
named  be  performed  in  this  way  or  by  sprinkling  — 
yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent  style  of  the 
administration  in  the  Apostles'  days,  was  by  an 
actual  submerging  of  the  whole  body  under  water. 
We  advert  to  this,  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  light 
on  the  analogy  that  is  instituted  in  these  verses. 
Jesus  Christ  by  death  underwent  this  sort  of  bap- 
tism—  even  immersion  under  the  surface  of  the 
ground,  whence  he  soon  emerged  again  by  his  resur- 
rection. We,  by  being  baptized  into  his  death,  are 
conceived  to  have  made  a  similar  translation.  In 
the  act  of  descending  under  the  water  of  baptism  to 
have  resigned  an  old  life,  and  in  the  act  of  ascending 
to  emerge  into  a  second  or  new  life,"  etc. 

"  The  evident  design  of  the  Apostle  in  these  pas- 
sages, is  to  enforce  the  duty  of  a  holy  life  and  con- 
versation. c  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may 
abound?     God  forbid.     How  shall  we  that  are  dead 


Sixth  Conversation.  79 

to  sin  live  therein  V  Our  very  baptism  teaches  us 
to  live  no  longer  to  sin.  We  have  died  to  sin,  there- 
fore we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death ; 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  When 
one  has  died,  he  is  afterward  buried.  Our  conver- 
sion was  our  death  to  sin.  Our  baptism  was  our 
burial,  to  testify  in  the  most  solemn  and  impressive 
manner  that  we  had  renounced  the  world  and  sin, 
and  henceforth  we  were  to  live  a  new  life  of  holiness. 
Our  immersion  is  a  solemn  burial,  showing  to  the 
world  that  we  have  died  to  sin.  Our  emersion  is  a 
resurrection,  showing  by  a  beautiful  and  impressive 
emblem  that  we  are  to  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
And  thus  immersion,  and  immersion  alone,  can  truly 
S}'mbolize  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  resurrection  to  a 
life  of  righteousness;  and  is  the  only  true  interpret- 
ation of  the  language  of  the  Apostle.-  And  hence, 
say  Messrs.  Conybeare  and  Howson,  "  It  is  needless 
to  add  that  baptism  was  (unless  in  exceptional 
cases),  administered  by  immersion,  the  convert  being 
plunged  beneath  the  surface  of  the  water  to  repre- 
sent his  death  to  the  life  of  sin,  and  then  raised  from 
this  momentary  burial,  to  represent  his  resurrection 
to  the  life  of  righteousness." 

M.  Yes,  in  immersion  we  have  a  beautiful  sym- 
bol that  sprinkling  knows  nothing  about.  What  do 
learned  authors  say  of  Paul's  baptism  ? 

P.  Perhaps  there  never  was  a  greater  unanimity 
of  opinion  among   eminent  Christian  scholars  and 


So  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

divines,  on  any  subject,  than  there  is  on  these  pas- 
sages. I  have  read  over  eighty  learned  authorities, 
and  they  unanimously  concede  them  to  mean  immer- 
sion ;  among  whom  I  may  mention  Calvin,  Luther, 
Chalmers,  Adam  Clarke,  Tyndale,Burkitt,White- 
field,  Olshausen,  Neander,  Mosheim,  Doddridge, 
Macknight,  Wesley,  Benson,  Conbyeare,  and  How- 
son — Lutherans,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists, 
Methodists,  and  Episcopalians. 

M.  That  is  certainly  a  great  array  of  authorities. 
I  remember  it  is  true  of  Wesley,  Benson,  and 
Clarke.  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "  buried  with  him"  allud- 
ing to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion. 
And  Mr.  Benson  adopts  Mr.  Wesley's  words.  While 
Dr.  Clarke  says :  "  They  receive  baptism  as  an 
emblem  of  death,  in  voluntarily  going  under  the 
water,  so  they  receive  it  as  an  emblem  of  resurrec- 
tion unto  eternal  life,  in  coming  up  out  of  the 
water." 

P.  And  yet  your  Tract  Society  has  published  a 
tract,  whose  title  is  "  Twenty-four  Facts  on  Bap- 
tism," in  which  the  writer  unblushingly  affirms  that 
"  it  is  a  fact  that '  being  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death/  refers  only  to  the  baptism  of  death.  Our 
Baptist  friends  think  they  see  water  in  it;  but  I  see 
nothing  but  death." 

M.  How  strangely  contradictory  some  of  our 
preachers  are  !  Here  this  wise  man  of  ours  has  the 
boldness  to  contradict  his  fathers  in  the  Gospel.  I 
see  immersion  in  water  in  the  passage,  say  Wesley, 


Sixth  Conversation  81 

Whitefield,  Benson,  and  Clarke.  But,  says  he, 
"I  see  nothing  but  death"  in  it! 

P.  It  is  very  strange  if  all  these  celebrated  writ- 
ers were  mistaken.  If  they  were  Baptists,  some 
might  have  a  little  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the 
interpretation.  But  as  they  were  all  members  of 
Pedobaptist  churches,  they  would  not  be  likely  to 
testify  against  themselves,  unless  the  text  abso- 
lutely required  it. 

M.  I  hardly  think  that's  fair,  brother  E.  I  do 
not  see  why  a  Baptist  can  not  be  as  impartial  in  his 
testimony  as  a  Pedobaptist.  He  certainly  has  no 
ease,  nor  any  less  cross-bearing  to  gain,  by  advocating 
immersion. 

P.  I  don't  know  but  what  I  did  our  Baptist 
friends  injustice.  A  little  of  the  old  leaven  of 
antipathy  to  them  will  yet  sometimes  manifest  itself 
when  I  do  not  think  of  it. 

M.  It  is  strange,  as  you  say,  if  all  these  witnesses 
are  mistaken. 

P.  And  it  is  equally  strange  that  the  Apostle, 
and  all  the  Romans  and  Colossians,  should  go  to 
the  trouble  of  being  immersed,  if  sprinkling  would 
have  done  as  well.  Common  sense  can  not  believe 
it.  It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  expect  a  Con- 
gregation alist  of  Chicago,  who  believes  a  few  drops 
of  water  or  sand  sprinkled  on  the  head  is  baptism, 
to  leave  his  church,  where  he  can  have  an  abund- 
ance for  such  a  ceremony,  and  go  to  Lake  Michigan 
4* 


82  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

to  bury  a  believer  [by  sprinkling]  with  Christ  in 
baptism. 

The  early  fathers  of  the  church  write  much  about 
the  symbolical  meaning  of  baptism.  I  will  give  you 
extracts  from  two.  Gregory  writes  in  the  year  350, 
"  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  that  we  may 
also  rise  again  with  him ;  we  descend  with  him, 
that  we  may  be  also  lifted  up  with  him."  And 
Chrysostom  says,  "  To  be  baptized  and  pi  mged, 
and  then  to  emerge,  or  rise  again,  is  a  symbol  of 
our  descent  into  the  grave,  and  our  ascent  out  of  it: 
and  therefore  Paul  calls  baptism  a  burial,  when  he 
says,  '  we  are  therefore  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
iuto  death/  " 

M.  There  certainly  can  be  no  doubt,  if  we  can 
rely  on  what  Paul  himself  says,  and  on  which  so 
many  eminent  scholars  agree,  that  he  was  immersed ; 
but  are  you  not  aware  that  a  few  of  late  days  deny 
it  ?  They  say  there  was  not  enough  water  at 
Damascus  to  immerse  Paul. 

P.  Yes,  I  am  aware  of  it;  and  they  are  but  few, 
with  more  presumption  than  sound  knowledge. 
But  they  have  never  been  able  to  prove  it.  In  their 
overhaste  to  destroy  Paul's  immersion  they  have 
flatly  contradicted  the  Scriptures.  They  say  there 
was  not  enough  water  at  Damascus  to  immerse  Paul. 
The  Bible  says,  "  Are  not  the  rivers  of  Abana  and 
Pharpar,  rivers  of  Damascus,  better  than  all  the 
waters  of  Israel  ?"  How  easily  a  plain  passage  of 
Scripture  can  sweep  away  the  inventions  of  error. 


Sixth  Conversation.  83 

"  The  Barada,  according  to  Stanley  and  Robin- 
son, rises  on  a  high  table-land  of  the  Anti-Libanus, 
is  a  deep,  broad,  rushing  mountain  stream,  with 
limpid  water,  and  skirted  with  beautiful  scenery. 
It  is  the  source  of  fertility  to  Damascus,  in  the 
numerous  canals  which  have  been  taken  from  it  for 
purposes  of  irrigation." — Appleton's  New  American 
Cyclopaedia,  p.  601,  article  Barada. 

"  The  streams  from  the  adjacent  high  range  of 
Anti-Libanus,  the  Barada  or  Chrysorrhoas,  and  the 
Awadj,  are  supposed  to  be  coincident  with  the 
Abana  and  Pharpar  of  Scripture.  (2  Kings  v.  12.) 
For  many  miles,  the  city  [Damascus]  is  surrounded 
by  fertile  fields  and  gardens,  which  are  watered  by 
rivulets  and  sparkling  streams,  giving  to  the  vegeta- 
tion a  charming  freshness  and  sweetness." — Ibid., 
Damascus,  p.  225. 

Says  the  American  Tract  Society's  Bible 
Dictionary,  "Abana  was  undoubtedly  the  present 
Barada,  *  *  *  a  perennial  river,  and  so  copious 
that,  though  no  less  than  nine  or  ten  branches,  or 
canals,  are  drawn  off  from  it,  to  irrigate  the  plain, 
and  supply  the  city  and  villages  around  it,  the  stream 
is  a  large  one  to  the  end." 

And  yet  it  was  a  dry  country,  say  these  wise, 
modern  Pedobaptists — not  enough  water  to  baptize 
Paul.  Why  will  men  build  so  much  on  the  sand, 
when  there  is  solid  rock  furnished  free  by  the  Bible 
for  an  enduring  foundation  ?     Pity  they  will  persist 


84  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

in  their  foolish  notions  at  the  expense  of  truth  and 
common  sense. 

M.  That's  so.  But  men  with  a  poor  cause  to 
defend,  have  to  resort  to  strange  things. 

P.  Of  the  manner  in  which  the  Apostles  bap- 
tized, Hermas,  mentioned  by  Paul  (Rom.  xvi.  14), 
says ;  "  The  Apostles  and  teachers  preached  to  them 
that  before  were  dead,  and  gave  this  seal  [baptism]  ; 
for  they  went  down  with  them  into  the  water  and 
came  up  again."  And  Barnabas,  the  companion  of 
Paul,  in  one  of  his  epistles,  says,  "  Blessed  are  they 
who,  fixing  their  hope  on  the  cross,  have  gone  down 
into  the  water."  In  the  other  epistle  he  says,  "  We 
descend  into  the  water,"  etc. 

Now  who  are  we  to  believe  ?  Paul  and  his  fellow- 
laborers  in  the  Gospel,  who  tell  us  plainly  that  they 
were  immersed,  and  that  they  immersed  others? 
or  those  superficial  writers  and  declaimers  against 
immersion,  who,  though  they  may  be  honest  and 
sincere,  only  prove  to  us  the  more  that  honesty  and 
sincerity  may  be  employed  in  the  propagation  of 
error,  and  can  never  make  that  right  which  is 
wrong  ? 

M.  Paul  and  the  Bible  of  course.  I  was  not 
aware  that  proof  so  full  and  complete  could  be  found 
outside  of  the  Bible  testimony  to  sustain  immersion. 
You  have  strengthened  my  faith  by  the  collateral 
evidence  you  have  given.  I  have  heard  it  said,  that 
Paul  thought  so  little  of  the  importance  of  baptism, 
that  he  thanked  God  he  had  only  baptized  a  few. 


Sixth  Conversation,  85 

It  was  by  one  of  that  class  who  are  continually 
talking  about  a  "good  conscience,"  "  non-essentials, " 
etc.,  and  who  can  prove  sprinkling  to  be  right  from 
Solomon's  Song.  Will  you  explain  that  passage 
before  we  separate  ? 

P.  If  he  can  prove  sprinkling  to  be  baptism  from 
Solomon's  Song,  any  argument  that  you  or  I  can 
make,  though  clearly  sustained  from  the  New 
Testament,  will  not  reach  the  disease  under  which 
he  is  laboring.  He  must  be  incurable.  I  will  leave 
a  Presbyterian  commentator  to  answer  the  objection. 
"Contention  had  crept  into  the  church,"  says  he; 
"some  cried  up  Paul  and  some  Apollos;  some 
Cephas,  and  some  were  for  neither,  but  Christ  only. 
Paul  expostulates  with  them  on  their  discords  and 
quarrels.  '  Is  Christ  divided?  was  Paul  crucified 
for  you?'  Was  he  your  sacrifice  and  atonement? 
Did  I  ever  pretend  to  be  your  Saviour  ?  Or  '  were 
ye  baptized  into  the  name  of  Paul  ?'  Were  ye 
devoted  to  my  service,  or  engaged  to  be  my  disci- 
ples by  this  rite  ?  No :  '  I  thank  God  I  baptized 
none  of  you,'  etc.  In  this  sense  it  was  a  matter  of 
thankfulness  he  had  baptized  so  few.  It  could  not 
now  be  said  that  he  had  baptized  in  his  own  name  — 
made  disciples  for  himself —  set  himself  up  as  the 
head  of  a  sect." 

M.  That  is  a  common  sense  view  of  it  —  sound 
and  clear.  But  what  do  you  make  of  Paul's  state- 
ment that  God  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preach  ? 


86  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

P.  Just  what  our  writers  make  of  it.  The  sim- 
ple meaning  is — the  primary  object  of  my  mission 
is  to  preach.  "  Not  so  much  to  baptize  as  to  preach." 
This  is  evident,  for  he  did  baptize  some.  He  had 
assistants,  and  left  it  to  them  to  baptize,  while  he 
set  himself  to  the  more  important  work  of  preach- 
ing. But  we  have  paid  more  attention  to  the  simple 
objection  than  it  is  worth. 

Now  let  us  sum  up  briefly  the  points  established. 
Paul  tells  us  himself  that  he  was  immersed — buried 
with  Christ  in  baptism.  Hermas  and  Barnabas  tell 
us  the  Apostles  immersed.  Then  we  have  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Fathers,  and  nearly  all  the  most  emi- 
nent scholars  and  divines  since  the  times  of  Christ 
until  now,  that  Paul  positively  refers  to  immersion 
when  he  says  to  the  Romans  and  Colossians,  "  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism,"  etc. 

Now  let  me  ask  you,  in  conclusion,  can  common 
sense  believe  that  St.  Paul,  and  all  the  Christians  at 
Pome  and  Colosse,  would  have  been  immersed,  as  it 
is  fully  evident  they  were,  if  sprinkling  would  have 
answered  the  same  purpose?  No.  And  therefore 
as  they  were  immersed  and  not  sprinkled,  the  evidence 
is  complete  and  conclusive,  that  they  did  not  believe 
sprinkling  baptism.  They  knew  nothing  about  sprinkling 
for  baptism.  They  neither  talked  about  it,  nor  practiced 
it.  Thus  Paul  speaks  out  clearly  and  distinctly  for 
immersion,  and  tells  us  as  there  is  but  one  Lord  and 
one  faith,  so  there  is  but  one  baptism. 

M.     And  the  Apostle  could  never  write  to  our 


Sixth  Conversation,  87 

churches  in  the  language  he  addressed  the  Romans 
and  Colossians.  His  are  unmeaning,  dead  words  to 
every  sprinkled  Christian.,  and  every  Pedobaptist  church. 
I  pity  the  man  who  takes  upon  himself  to  prove  that 
a  burial  in  water  is  a  sprinkling  on  land. 

P.  That  is  very  true,  brother  C.  Suppose  the 
Apostle  were  to  address  an  epistle  to  one  of  our 
churches,  commencing : 

"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  ;  there- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death 
*  *  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death  *  * 
wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him" — 

Would  not  the  reply  be : 

"No,  we  know  nothing  about  it,  Paul.  'Tis  all  a 
mystery  to  us.  'Buried  with  him  —  planted  toge- 
ther—  risen  with  him  !'  What  do  you  mean,  Paul? 
ISTo,  no;  we  have  neither  been  buried  nor  planted 
with  Christ  in  baptism  —  in  the  likeness  of  his  death 
—  nor  raised  up  with  him  to  walk  in  newness  of  life; 
unless  you  call  our  sprinkling  a  burial,  and  planting, 
and  a  rising  from  the  grave !  In  that  case,  we've 
been  buried,  and  planted,  by  sprinkling  into  Jesus 
Christ — planted  by  sprinkling  into  the  likeness  of  his 
death  !  and  in  our  imagination  we  rose  from  the 
grave  when  we  were  buried  by  sprinkling  standing  up 
in  the  church  !" 

"  Tut,  tut !  That's  all  jargon  and  nonsense !" 
would  not  Paul  indignantly  reply.  "You  make 
horrible  work  of  my  language.     How  can  you  mis- 


88  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

understand  me,  or  pervert  my  words?  Have  I  not 
told  you  that  there  is  but  *  one  baptism  ?'  and  that  I 
was  'planted,'  '  buried,'  and  'raised'  with  Christ  in 
baptism  ?  Have  I  not  told  you  that  I  delivered  but 
one  form  of  doctrine  and  ordinances  to  the  church, 
and  taught  the  same  things  every  where  in  every 
church  ?  And  yet  you  would  make  me  speak  such 
nonsense  as  that !  Ye  have  taken  for  doctrine  and 
practice  the  traditions  of  men ;  and  thus  have  ye  des- 
tro}^ed  the  symbol  of  the  believer's  death  to  sin,  and 
resurrection  to  a  new  life,  and  the  Master's  burial 
and  resurrection.  If  ye  can  not  believe  the  plain 
words  I  have  written  to  the  Romans  and  Colossians, 
neither  will  ye  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from 
the  dead.     I  say  unto  you  as  I  wrote  unto  them : 

*  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 
likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection."  * 

Here  let  us  end  our  investigation  for  to-night. 
To-morrow  evening  we  will  devote  to  the  Eunuch's 
baptism. 


Sixth  Conversation.  89 

Eminent  Pedobaptists  who  affirm  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  refers  to  Immersion  in  Komans  vi.  4,  and 
Colossians  11. 12. 

The  list  might  be  greatly  extended ;  but  it  is  large 
enough  to  show  the  truth  of  what  our  Presbyterian 
friend  asserts. 

Tertullian,  a  Christian  father,  who  nourished  at 
the  close  of  the  second  century. 

Origen,  an  illustrious  father  of  the  church  (begin- 
ning of  third  century). 

Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage  (third  century). 

Chrysostom,  Bishop  and  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople (fourth  century). 

Est,  Catholic  Chancellor  of  the  University  of 
Douay. 

Photius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (eighth 
century). 

St.  Ephrem,  the  Syrian,  a  learned  writer  of  fourth 
century. 

Bede,  surnamed  the  Venerable,  an  historian  in  the 
ancient  church  of  Britain. 

John  Frith,  a  distinguished  reformer  and  martyr. 

Wm.  Tyndal,  translator  of  the  Bible,  and  martyr. 

John  Calvin.4 

Martin  Luther.2 

Zuingli,  a  distinguished  annotator. 

Augustus  Neander,  D.D.,  church  historian. 

Hugo  Grotius,  LL.D.,  one  of  the  most  profound 
scholars  of  the  seventeenth  century. 


90  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

John  D.  Michaelis,  Chancellor  of  the  University 
of  Gottingen,  a  man  of  vast  erudition. 

John  C.  Wolfius,    a  learned  critic  of  Germany. 

W.  M.  L.  De  Wette,  D.D.,  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent scholars  of  Germany.1 

F.  A.  G.  Tholuck,  D.D.,  commentator,  Professor 
of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Halle.1 

Wm.  Burkitt,  D.D.,  a  celebrated  commentator.3 

Daniel  Whitby,  D.D.,  a  commentator  of  dis- 
tinguished learning.3 

John  G.  Rosenmuller,  a  learned  critic.2 

Archbishop  Tillotson,  a  learned  author.8 

J.  B.  Koppe,  D.D.,  an  eminent  scholar.2 

James  Macknight,  D.D.,  distinguished  as  a  minis- 
ter and  commentator.4 

Philip  Doddridge,  D.D.,  a  learned  commentator. 

J.  T.  Bloomfield,  D.D.,  an  eminent  scholar  and 
author. 

John  Wesley.5 

Joseph  Benson,  D.D.,  celebrated  as  a  commenta- 
tor.5 

Adam  Clarke,  D.D.,  a  learned  author  and  com- 
mentator.5 

H.  Olshausen,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in 
the  University  of  Ertangen,  and  a  commentator. 

Philip  Scahff,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
Mercersburg  Seminary,  and  an  able  scholar.1 

Conybeare  and  Howson,  distinguished  as  authors 
of  the  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.3 


Sixth  Conversation.  91 

J.  A.  Turretin,  a  learned  scholar,  Professor  of 
Theology  at  Geneva.4 

Albert  Barnes,  D.D.,  author  of  Commentary  on 
New  Testament.4 

George  Hill,  D.D.,  President  of  St.  Mary's  Col- 
lege, St.  Andrews.4 

Eobert  Haldane,  Esq.,  a  distinguished  writer.4 

If  we  add  to  these  all  the  learned  writers  who 
declare  immersion  to  be  the  correct  rendering  of  the 
word  baptize,  and  those  who  say  that  immersion  was 
the  practice  of  the  primitive  church;  we  have  an 
array  of  testimony  in  favor  of  the  Baptists  truly 
imposing. 

In  comparison  with  the  foregoing  testimony  how 
pitiful  is  the  assertion  of  the  writer  of  the  tract, 
"  Bible  Baptism,"  published  by  the  Presbyterians. 
Immersion  is  a  "  sectarian  baptism,"  says  he  :  "  this 
[pouring]  gives  you  the  form,  and  only  form  of  Bible 
baptism." 

1.  German  Reformed.    2.    Lutheran.    8.  Episcopalian,  or  Church  of  England. 
4.  Presbyterian.    5.  Methodist. 


Seventh     Conversation, 


The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch* 


RESBYTERIAE".  Well,  brother  E.,  we 
have  a  plain  case  before  us  to-night.  It 
is  really  a  one-sided  question,  and  the 
Baptist^  have  it  all  their  own  way. 
Methodist.  Yes,  the  Baptists  are  "great"  on 
the  Eunuch's  baptism.  And  here  I  agree  with  them 
heartily.  I  have  always  believed  that  the  Eunuch 
was  immersed,  from  the  narrative  given  in  the  Bible. 
Yet  I  shall  be  glad  to  listen  to  what  you  have  to  say 
about  it.     I  will  read  the  example: 

"  Then  Philip  opened  his  mouth  and  began  at  the 
same  Scripture,  and  preached  unto  him  Jesus.  And 
as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto  a  certain 
water:  and. the  Eunuch  said,  See,  here  is  water; 
what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip 
said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart  thou  mayest. 
And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  commanded  the 
chariot  to  stand  still,  and  they  went  down  both  into 


Seventh  Conversation,  93 

the  water;  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch;  and  he 
baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out 
of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away 
Philip,  that  the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more;  and  he 
went  on  his  way  rejoicing" — Acts  viii.  35 — 89. 

P.  The  Eunuch,  a  man  in  authority,  was  travel- 
ing in  state.  Philip  joined  him,  and  preached  unto 
him  Christ,  and  no  doubt  baptism ;  for  on  arriving 
at  certain  water,  the  Eunuch  said :  "  See,  here  is 
water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  when, 
on  the  profession  of  his  faith,  Philip  baptized  him. 
An  eminent  scholar  and  writer,  once  a  Presbyterian 
minister,  says :  "  This  is  as  correct  and  as  literal  a 
translation  of  the  words,  as  can  possibly  be  made; 
and  surely  it  is  so  plain  that  the  most  illiterate  man 
can  be  at  no  loss  to  discover  from  it  the  mind  of  the 
Lord  on  the  subject.  The  man  who  can  read  it,  and 
not  see  immersion  in  it,  must  have  something  in  his 
mind  unfavorable  to  the  investigation  of  truth.  As 
long  as  I  fear  God,  I  can  not,  for  all  the  kingdoms 
in  the  world,  resist  the  evidence  of  this  simple  docu- 
ment. Nay,  had  I  no  more  conscience  than  Satan 
himself,  I  could  not,  as  a  scholar,  attempt  to  expel 
immersion  from  this  account.  All  the  ingenuity  of 
all  the  critics  of  Europe  [and  America,  too],  could 
not  silence  the  evidence  of  this  passage.  Amidst 
the  most  violent  perversions  it  can  sustain  on  the 
rack,  it  will  still  cry  out  immersion!  immersion /" 

M.  I  know  it  has  been  awfully  tortured  by  some 
of  our  ministers,  and  the  more  they  have  tried  to 


94  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

extort  from  it  an  admission  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  it 
has  always  cried  to  me  the  louder  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion. 

P.  And  so  it  does  to  all  impartial  seekers  after 
the  truth.  But  let  us  look  at  the  order  of  the  nar- 
rative. It  is  stated  first  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
came  unto  a  "  certain  water,"  then  "  they  went  down 
both  into  the  water."  Why  should  they  go  down 
to  the  water,  and  into  the  water,  if  not  for  immersion  f 
And  then,  as  if  the  Holy  Spirit  intended  to  make 
the  immersion  so  plain  that  no  one  need  misunder- 
stand it,  it  is  added,  "  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch." 
Why  should  Philip  go  into  the  water,  if  not  to  im- 
merse the  Eunuch  ?  He  could  have  stood  by  the 
side  of  the  water  and  sprinkled  him.  And  lastly, 
after  their  baptism,  they  both  came  up  out  of  the  toater. 
How  could  they  come  out  of  the  water  if  they  had 
not  been  in  it? 

Thus,  to  repeat  what  I  have  said,  coming  unto  the 
water,  they  went  down  to  the  water,  went  into  the  water, 
and  came  up  out  of  the  water.  What  can  be  a  clearer 
case  of  immersion  than  this  ?  Can  there  be  words 
found  in  the  English  language  to  express  more  dis- 
tinctly and  emphatic  the  immersion  of  a  believer? 
Is  it  not  vain  to  deny  it  ? 

M.  It  certainly  is.  And  when  I  have  heard  our 
ministers,  who  knew  no  more  about  Greek  than 
myself,  talk  so  boastingly  that  going  down  into  and 
coming  up  out  of  the  water  only  meant  to  and  from 
the  water,  I  could  not  help  thinking  of  the  Scotch 


Seventh  Conversation,  95 

woman's  reply  to  the  Universalist :  "  Ye  twist  tne 
Scriptures  I"  Kay  more,  they  contradict  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  Bible  says  one  thing,  they  say  another. 
I  never  could  see  why  it  is  stated  so  positively  that 
they  both  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch,  if  they  only  went  to  the  water's  edge. 
If  it  meant  so,  why  is  it  not  thus  stated  ?  If  that  is 
the  right  meaning,  why  did  not  the  translators  use 
the  very  words  to  express  it?  Why  let  the  narra- 
tive say  in  so  many  different  ways  it  was  an  immersion, 
if  it  was  a  sprinkling  f  Is  it  credible  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  would  use  language  so  calculated  to  mislead, 
if  sprinkling  or  pouring  were  here  meant? 

P.  That  is  a  just  and  common  sense  view  of  it. 
Besides,  there  were  words  in  the  Greek  language  to 
express  distinctly  the  act  of  sprinkling  and  pouring. 
Why  did  not  the  sacred  writers  employ  them?  And 
if  they  did  use  them,  why  have  our  translators 
employed  words  that  entirely  destroy  their  meaning? 
The  conclusion,  to  my  mind,  is  inevitable  —  the 
narrative  means  what  it  says,  or  different  words 
would  have  been  used. 

"  The  Bible  was  written  for  plain  men,  in  a  plain 
style,  that  they  might  at  a  glance  get  its  meaning. 
When  men  read  about  baptism  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, of  being  baptized  in  Jordan,  all  baptized  of 
him  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  going  down  into  the 
water,  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  buried  in  bap- 
tism, etc.,  they  get  the  idea  of  immersion — just 
what  all    the  lexicons  say  what  the  word   means. 


96  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

And  if  it  were  not  for  the  continued  efforts  of  oui 
ministers  to  make  the  Bible  oppose  itself,  all  contro- 
versy on  the  subject  of  baptism  would  soon  end. 

M.  I  have  thought  the  way  some  of  our  friends 
try  to  prove  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  immer- 
sion, in  such  a  clear  case  as  the  Eunuch's  baptism, 
has  led  many  to  doubt  the  inspiration  of  God's 
Word.  Now,  says  the  skeptic,  how  can  you  blame 
us  for  not  believing  the  Bible  ?  Here  it  clearlv  and 
distinctly  states  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went 
into  the  water  and  came  up  out  of  the  water,  and 
yet  you  tell  us  it  does  not  mean  any  such  thing. 
If  in  such  a  plain  statement  of  facts  it  deceives  us 
here,  how  can  we  believe  it  to  be  a  revelation  from 
God? 

P.  And  his  conclusion  is  just.  No  wonder  the 
infidel  went  to  the  minister  who  had  been  trying 
hard  to  prove  that  going  into  and  coming  up  out  of 
the  water  did  not  mean  so.  He  complimented  him 
on  his  sermon  —  it  had  relieved  his  mind  of  a  great 
difficulty.  "For,"  said  he,  "I  could  never  believe 
that  Daniel  was  cast  into  a  lion's  den  and  came  out 
safe ;  nor  that  Shadrach,  Meshac,  and  Abednego 
were  cast  into  the  fiery  furnace,  and  came  out  un- 
burnt.  But  your  argument  to-day  makes  it  all  easy. 
There  was  no  miracle  about  it.  Daniel  was  cast  at 
or  near  the  lion's  den,  and  the  three  worthies  went 
to  or  near  the  furnace,  but  not  into  it.  No  wonder 
they  all  escaped  safely  !" 

But  one  of  the  smartest  things  of  modern 


Seventh  Conversation,  97 

inventions  is  to  be  found  in  a  little  tract  printed  and 
circulated  widely  by  the  Presbyterians.  The  writer 
says :  "  In  Bible  baptism  the  person  is  never  put 
into  water,  but  water  is  put  upon  the  person.  So 
when  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch :  wearing  no 
stockings  it  was  very  easy  to  remove  the  sandals, 
and  then,  gathering  up  the  flowing  robes,  to  step 
into  the  margin  of  the  stream.  And  then  Philip  took 
water  into  his  hands,  and  caused  it  to  fall  upon  the 
Eunuch,  and  thus  baptized  him." 

M.  The  foolish  writer !  Why  did  he  go  to  the 
trouble  of  removing  the  Eunuch's  sandals,  tucking 
up  his  flowing  robes,  and  taking  him  into  the  mar- 
gin of  the  stream  to  sprinkle  or  pour  water  on  him? 
He  could  have  done  this,  and  made  much  easier 
work  of  it.  But  he  seems  to  know  all  about  it:  he 
talks  as  if  he  had  been  there.  But  where  does  he 
find  these  things  in  the  Bible?  If  he  had  had  com- 
mon sense  enough  to  have  told  us  how  broad  the 
margin  was,  how  deep  Philip  had  to  take  the 
Eunuch  into  the  water  to  find  sufficient  to  sprinkle 
him,  and  how  he  "  caused"  the  water  to  fall  on  the 
Eunuch  —  if  he  had  given  us  but  one  passage  of 
Scripture  as  proof — he  would  have  settled  the  ques- 
tion forever.  Inventing  so  much,  why  didn't  he 
settle  the  matter  by  adding  a  little  more. 

P.  Here  is  what  Matthew  Henry,  the  commen- 
tator, says:  "It  was  the  best  baiting  place  the 
Eunuch  ever  met  writh  in  any  of  his  journeys,  so  he 
ordered    his   coachman   to   stop,'  commanding   his 

5 


q8  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

chariot  to  stand  still.  They  had  no  convenient 
vessels  with  them,  being  on  a  journey,  wherewith 
to  take  up  water,  and  must  therefore  go  down  into 
it,  going  barefoot,  according  to  the  custom.  They 
went  perhaps  up  to  the  ankles  into  the  water,  and 
Philip  sprinkled  water  upon  him." 

M.     But  he  has  forgotten  the  sandals. 

P.     Yes,  but  he  is  sure  it  was  a  good  baiting  place. 

Mr.  Wesley  says :  "  That  going  down  may  relate 
to  the  chariot,  and  implies  no  determinate  depth  of 
water.  It  might  be  up  to  their  knees,  it  might  not 
be  above  their  ankles  I"  I  give  you  these  examples 
to  show  how  good  some  of  our  friends  are  at  inven- 
tion. 

M.  And  yet  they  all  have  to  take  the  Eunuch 
into  the  water  to  sprinkle  him.  If  Mr.  Wesley 
had  left  the  chariot  out  of  the  water  in  charge 
of  Matthew  Henry's  coachman,  and  tucked  the 
Eunuch's  Presbyterian  flowing  robes  up,  it  would 
have  agreed  better  with  the  other  writers. 

P.  Some  of  our  ministers  have  to  labor  lon^  and 
hard  to  try  and  prove  that  the  narrative  does  not 
mean  what  it  teaches.  It  takes  a  great  deal  of  their 
time  and  learning  to  try  and  prove  that  the  Bible  is 
not  true.  But  Dr.  Doddridge,  a  celebrated  Congre- 
gational expositor,  has  the  candor  to  say,  "  It  would 
be  very  unnatural  to  suppose  that  they  went  down 
to  the  water  merely  that  Philip  might  take  up  a 
little  water  to  pour  on  the  Eunuch."  And  John 
Calvin  says :  "  Here  we  may  perceive  how  baptism 


Seventh  Conversation.  99 

was   administered    among    the   ancients,   for   thev 
immersed  the  whole  body  in  water." 

M.  And  Dr.  Clarke  admits  it  to  have  been  an 
immersion.     What  do  learned  authors  say  about  it? 

P.  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  there 
is  nearly  a  united  voice  from  all  learned  authors 
that  the  Eunuch  was  immersed.  Of  late  I  have 
noticed  there  is  great  silence  on  the  subject.  The 
Bible  and  the  Baptists  are  the  victors.  Our  friends 
who  have  questioned  it  have  given  the  text  so  many 
"  queer  meanings,"  that  it  has  led  many  to  doubt 
the  truth  of  the  cause  that  requires  so  much  absurd- 
ity for  its  defence,  and  to  commence  investigating 
for  themselves;  and  investigation,  as  with  myself, 
will  bring  them  into  the  light.  Investigation  will 
reveal  the  truth. 

31.  What  you  say  about  "  queer  meanings," 
reminds  me  of  the  anecdote  of  the  negro.  When 
asked  why  so  many  of  them  believed  in  immersion, 
he  said,  "  We  niggers  have  to  work  all  de  time, 
and  when  we  read  the  Bible  we  have  to  take  it  just 
as  it  reads ;  for  we  have  no  time  to  hunt  up  queer 
meanings." 

P.  In  looking  over  this  narrative,  I  have  asked 
myself  the  following  question :  If  sprinkling  was 
lawful,  and  practiced  by  the  Apostles,  why  should 
Philip  take  the  Eunuch  down  into  the  water?  It 
was  not  necessary  for  that  object  —  it  was  not  cer- 
tainly the  easiest  way  of  baptizing  him,  if  sprinkling 
is  baptism.     And  then  the  conclusion  was  inevitably 


ioo  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

forced  upon  my  mind,  that  Philip  took  the  Eunuch 
down  into  the  water  to  immerse  him.  Thus  with 
that  intention 

"  They  went  down  both  into  the  water." 


A  Bf^ief  Summary  of  the  Ground  Examined. 

P.  I  will  now  enumerate  briefly  the  points  proved 
in  our  Conversations. 

1.  I  have  proved  conclusively  that  baptize  means 
to  immerse,  and  that  only.  I  have  proved  it  by 
common  sense,  by  the  testimony  of  lexicons,  ency- 
clopaedias, eminent  scholars  of  Pedobaptist  denomi- 
nations, and,  above  all,  by  the  Scriptures.  Among 
our  writers  who  affirm  it,  are  Luther,  Calvin, 
Mosheim,  Meander,  Guericke,  Chalmers,  Knapp, 
Campbell,  Macknight,  Storrs,  Flatt,  Baxter,  Stuart, 
and  a  host  of  others.  "With  these  agree  the  Greek 
Church,  composing  nearly  half  of  Christendom,  and 
over  two  million  Baptists. 

2.  That  the  sacred  writers  used  the  word  baptize 
as  commonly  understood  by  the  people,  and  with  a 
specific  meaning  —  immersion. 

3.  That  John's  baptism  was  immersion. 

4.  That  Christ  and  his  disciples  were  immersed. 


A  Brief  Summary,  101 

5.  That  the  disciples,  under  the  authority  of 
Christ,  immersed. 

6.  That  the  baptism  of  John  and  Christ  were  the 
same. 

7.  That  Christ,  in  the  great  commission,  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  go  teach  and  immerse. 

8.  That  Paul  and  the  Romans  and  Colossians 
were  immersed. 

9.  That  the  Eunuch  was  immersed  by  Philip. 

10.  That  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  primi 
tive  church. 

M.  With  such  an  array  of  facts  as  you  have 
given,  I  don't  see  where  sprinkling  can  get  a  peg  to 
hang  a  hope  on. 

P.  It  has  one  "  peg,"  and  that  is  "  indifferency." 
Now,  can  common  sense  believe  that  sprinkling 
is  scriptural,  when  we  declare  that  John,  Jesus,  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  Philip,  Paul,  the  Christian 
Romans  and  Colossians,  nay,  the  whole  primitive 
church,  baptized  and  were  baptized  by  immersion  ? 
"Would  all  these  have  been  immersed  had  they 
believed  sprinkling  of  divine  origin,  or  could  have 
answered  the  same  purpose  as  immersion?  If 
immersion  had  not  been  exclusively  baptism,  would 
the  primitive  church  have  quietly  submitted  to  it 
without  remonstrance  or  protest  ?  We  read  of  bit- 
ter opposition  to  sprinkling  when  it  was  introduced. 
We  see  it  denounced  as  a  human  invention,  and 
popes,  councils,  etc.,  called  upon  to  sanction  and 
defend  it;  but  not  so  of  immersion.     Why  all  this, 


102  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

if  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or  believed  an  apostolical 
institution?  Why  so  much  preference  for  immer- 
sion and  opposition  to  sprinkling,  if  sprinkling  is  a 
divine  institution,  and  so  much  easier  to  submit  to  ? 

Bringing  it  nearer  home,  can  common  sense 
believe  that  the  Greek  Church,  with  its  millions, 
and  the  two  million  Baptists  in  America,  would 
refuse  at  this  day,  and  at  once,  to  accept  of  sprink- 
ling, if  they  could  believe  it  to  be  of  God,  and 
answer  the  same  purpose  as  immersion  ? 

And  mark  you,  my  friend,  the  primitive  church 
practiced  immersion  when  it  was  yet  pure,  before 
the  dark  days  of  degeneracy  and  corruption  came 
upon  it.  But  not  so  with  sprinkling.  It  rose  in 
the  times  of  darkness  and  superstition,  and  abides 
in  darkness  even  to  this  day.  Human  expediency 
gave  it  birth,  and  expediency  alone  now  keeps  it 
from  a  speedy  death. 

Here  let  us  end  our  evening's  conversation. 

[Before  parting  Mr.  E.  said : 

"  The  ordinance  of  baptism  is  to  be  administered 
to-morrow  by  a  Pedobaptist  and  Baptist.  One  is  to 
succeed  the  other.  Suppose  we  go?  We  shall 
there  see  a  practical  illustration  of  the  topics  we 
have  been  discussing." 

To  which  Mr.  C.  assented,  and  so  our  two  friends 
parted  for  the  night  with  this  understanding.] 


The  Baptismal   Scene. 


N"  the  Sabbath  Mr.  E.  called  at  the  house 
of  his  friend,  when  they  started  together 
for  the  place  of  baptism.  It  was  a  beau- 
tiful day,  and  a  large  congregation  had 
gathered  to  witness  the  scene.  The  Pedobaptist 
ceremony  was  to  take  place  first.  To  get  a  clear 
view,  our  friends  drew  as  near  as  they  conveniently 
could.  After  singing  and  a  brief  prayer,  seven  or 
eight  candidates  for  baptism  stepped  forward,  and 
now  was  exhibited  almost  to  perfection  the  opposing 
modes  of  Pedobaptism.  Some  stood  up  and  others 
knelt  down  on  the  shore,  and  were  sprinkled  and 
poured.  Some  stood  up  in  the  water  and  were 
sprinkled,  and  one  lady  knelt  down  in  the  water 
and  had  a  pailfull  of  water  poured  on  her;  while 
others  were  immersed.  Five  or  six  different  ways 
was  the  ordinance  administered  —  nearly  as  many 
modes  as  there  were  candidates. 

After  singing  the  doxology,  the  congregation  was 
dismissed  with  the  benediction. 

Our  two  friends,  with  a  far  greater  number  of  the 


104  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

people,  then  went  a  little  further  up  the  river, 
where  the  Baptists  were  going  to  baptize.  On  their 
way,  Mr.  E.,  turning  to  his  companion,  said: 

"  Well,  brother  C,  what  do  you  think  of  that 
scene? 

M.  I  must  say  that  it  looked  strangely  inconsist- 
ent. How  can  all  these  things  be  baptism  ?  How 
could  the  Saviour  institute,  and  his  Apostles  prac- 
tice, such  contradictory  modes  as  these  ?  They  are 
certainly  at  variance  with  both  Scripture  and  com- 
mon sense.  All  harmony  and  uniformity  of  prac- 
tice, mentioned  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  are  completely 
destroyed.  And  yet  we  are  told  by  our  teachers 
that  Christ  did  institute  them.  Of  course  they  must 
believe  it,  or  how  would  they  dare  to  practice  them  ? 
But  it's  very  queer  any  how !" 

P.  If  there  had  been  one  sprinkled  with  sand  and 
a  babe  with  water,  there  would  have  been  a  complete 
illustration  of  the  teachings  of  our  friends;  then  the 
example  would  have  been  perfect.  "What  kind  of 
"  consciences"  must  the  administrator  and  the  bap- 
tized have  ?  How  can  they  reconcile  these  things 
with  the  Scriptures?  It  is  beyond  my  comprehen- 
sion ;  so  I  will  turn  it  over  to  the  doctors. 

They  now  approached  the  large  congregation 
that  lined  the  banks  of  the  beautiful  river,  and  lis- 
tened to  the  singing  of  that  impressive  hymn  : 


The  Baptismal  Scene.  105 

Thou  hast  said,  exalted  Jesus, 

"  Take  thy  cross  and  follow  me  ;" 
Shall  the  word  with  terror  seize  us  ? 

Shall  we  from  the  burden  flee  ? 
Lord,  I'll  take  it, 

And,  rejoicing,  follow  thee. 

While  this  liquid  tomb  surveying, 

Emblem  of  my  Saviour's  grave, 
Shall  I  shun  its  brink,  betraying 

Feelings  worthy  of  a  slave  ? 
No!    I'll  enter: 

Jesus  entered  Jordan's  wave. 

Blest  the  sign  which  thus  reminds  me, 

Saviour,  of  thy  love  for  me ; 
But  more  blest  the  love  that  binds  me 

In  its  deathless  bonds  to  thee : 
O,  what  pleasure, 

Buried  with  my  Lord  to  be ! 

After  singing  and  prayer  the  administrator  quoted 
the  following  passages  of  Scripture:  "Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  and  was  baptized  of  John 
in  Jordan." — Mark  i.  10.  "And  they  went  down 
both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him." — Acts  viii.  38. 

Then  the  candidates,  some  fifteen  in  number, 
were  passed  by  the  deacons  to  the  minister,  the 
people  singing: 

Through  floods  and  flames,  if  Jesus  lead, 
I'll  follow  where  he  goes, 
"  Hinder  me  not,"  shall  be  my  cry, 
Though  earth  and  hell  oppose. 

5* 


106  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

After  singing,  they  were  baptized,  the  minister 
quoting  Paul's  words:  "Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism."  Then,  taking  the  hand  of 
the  last  baptized,  straightway  came  up  out  of  the  water, 
like  Philip  and  the  Eunuch.  After  which  the  dox- 
ology  was  sung,  and  the  benediction  pronounced. 
There  was  no  haste  nor  confusion ;  and  the  whole 
ceremony  not  exceeding  twenty  minutes — less  than 
half  the  time  used  on  the  former  occasion.  It  was 
a  deeply  solemn  time.  Some  were  bathed  in  tears, 
while  the  faces  of  others  were  radiant  with  joy; 
while  still  others  were  convinced  of  sin,  and  retired 
from  the  baptismal  waters  to  seek  the  Saviour,  and 
in  like  manner  were  subsequently  baptized. 

On  their  way  home,  the  two  friends  seemed  little 
inclined  to  converse,  so  deeply  were  they  impressed 
with  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion.  At  length  Mr. 
C.  abruptly  broke  the  silence,  by  exclaiming: 

"  That  looks  like  baptism,  brother  E.  How  sol- 
emn and  impressive  !  What  order  and  uniformity  ! 
How  joyful  the  baptized !     Did  you  not  see  it  all  V 

"Yes;  and  I  can  truly  say,  it  was  good  to  be 
there.  How  appropriate  the  Scripture  quoted ! 
What  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  scriptural  ex- 
amples of  baptism  we  have  been  examining!" 

Then  each  turned  his  steps  homeward,  with  a 
friendly  "good-by." 


Baptism   a    Symbol. 


HE  example  of  the  apostle  Paul  decides 
conclusively  his  opinion  of  baptism,  and 
"  sets  clearly  before  us,"  says  the  learned 
Michaelis,  "  immersion,  and  can  not  be 
applied  to  sprinkling  with  water."  And  not  only 
is  his  own  action  specified,  but  the  immersion  of 
the  Romans  and  Colossians,  nay,  all  who  had  then 
been  baptized ;  for  let  it  be  kept  in  mind,  that  he 
taught  the  same  things  "  every  where,  in  every  church  ;" 
and  delivered  unto  the  people  the  same  "  doctrines  " 
and  "  ordinances."  How  emphatically  and  joyfully 
he  gives  utterance  to  the  blessed  truth  of  his  immer- 
sion in  its  symbolical  significance,  when  writing  to 
his  brethren  of  the  same  like  experience  :  "  Know 
ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  :  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the 
likeness  of  his  resurrection." — Rom.  vi :  3,  4. 

Says     Rosenmuller,    a    learned     critic    of    the 
Lutheran  church  :  "  To  baptize  is  to  immerse,  to  dip  ; 


io8  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

the  body,  or  the  part  of  the  body  which  is  to  be 
baptized,  going  under  the  water."  "  Immersion  in 
the  water  of  baptism,  and  the  coming  out  of  the 
same,  was  a  sign  that  the  old  life  had  been  aban- 
doned, and  a  new  one,  in  the  opposite  direction, 
established.  Hence  it  was  customary  for  those  bap- 
tized to  be  spoken  of  on  the  one  hand  as  dead  and 
buried  ;  on  the  other,  as  resuscitated  again  into  a  new 
afe.  The  learned  rightly  admonish  us,  that  on 
amount  of  this  mystical  sense  of  baptism,  the  rite 
of  immersion  ought  to  have  been  retained  in  the 
Christian  church." 

u  The  rite  of  baptism,"  says  Robert  Haldane,  a 
Presbyterian,  "  exhibits  Christians  as  dying,  as 
ouried,  and  as  risen  with  Christ."  Nay,  it  is  a 
more  comprehensive  symbol  than  this.  Well  and. 
beautifully  aoes  Di.  Boardman  say : 

"  Would  thou  symbolize  thy  death  in  sin  and  thy 
resurrection  to  hoKnes3  ?  Then  be  buried  by  bap- 
tism into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so 
thou  also  mayst  walk  in  newness  of  life.*  Wouldst 
thou  symbolize  thy  total  deulement  and  thy  desire 
for  total  purification  ?  Then  arise  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins.f  Wouldst  thou  symbolize 
fhy  beiief  in  a  buried  and  risen  Mediator,  and  thy 
participation  in  his  death  and  resurrection  ?  Then 
be  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  arise 

*  Rom.  vi :  4.  t  Acts  xxii :  16. 


^Baptism  a  Symbol.  109 

with  him.*  Wouldst  thou  symbolize  thy  confident 
expectation  that  thou  shalt  share  in  his  blissful 
immortality?  Then  submit  thyself  to  baptism  — 
descending  into  the  liquid  tomb  and  emerging:  for 
if  thou  art  planted  together  with  him  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  thou  shalt  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection. f  Oh,  glorious  symbol  this  of  the 
Christian's  creed  !  He  may  tell  me  in  words  all 
that  he  believes  about  himself  and  about  his  Lord. 
He  may  tell  me  of  his  sins  and  his  hopes  —  his  tears 
for  the  past  and  his  resolves  for  the  future.  He 
may  tell  me  all  that  Jesus  has  done  for  him,  and  all 
that  he  intends  to  do  for  Jesus.  But  when  I  see 
him  silently  submitting  himself  to  holy  baptism,  I 
read  a  more  eloquent  story,  told  in  a  language  which 
all  peoples  of  the  earth  can  understand  —  which 
changes  not  with  the  flight  of  years  —  which  no  ora- 
tory can  rival  —  which  carries  the  head  because  it 
has  first  carried  the  heart  —  which  is  the  truth  of 
God  expressed  in  the  act  of  man.  Not  that  there  is 
any  thing  in  the  ordinance  which  savors  of  regen- 
erating or  sanctifying  tendency.  For  baptism  is  a 
symbol,  not  a  power ;  a  shadow,  not  the  substance. 
And  it  shadows  forth  at  the  same  instant  the  most 
momentous  events  in  the  history  of  Christ  and  in 
the  history  of  the  Christian  ;  all  that  Christ  has  suf- 
fered and  done  for  us ;  all  that  we  mean  to  suffer 
and  do  for  Christ ;  all  that  we  are  by  nature ;  all 

*  Col.  ii.  12.  t  Rom.  vi.  5. 


no  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

that  we  hope  to  be  by  grace.  Verily,  none  but  a 
God  infinite  in  counsel  could  have  devised  a  rite  so 
simple  and  yet  so  dense  with  meaning  and  glory ! 
To  him  be  all  the  praise  !" 


Eighth    Conversation. 

Infant  Baptism. 


ETHODIST.  Suppose  we  devote  this 
evening,  brother  E.,  to  the  investigation 
of  Infant  Baptism  ?  That  is  a  doctrine  in 
which  I  have  ever  believed,  and  which 
appears  to  me  to  be  plainly  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
Yet,  from  some  things  you  have  said,  you  have 
raised  a  doubt  in  my  mind. 

Presbyterian.  I  have  no  objection.  I  once 
thought  the  same  as  you  do  on  this  subject.  But 
an  examination  of  it  has  led  me  to  a  different  con- 
clusion. 

M.  It  is  a  precious  doctrine  to  me,  and  has  a 
strong  hold  on  my  sympathy. 

P.  Well,  let  us  examine  it  fairly  and  impar- 
tially. It  was  to  me  also  a  favorite  and  precious 
doctrine,  and  had  firmly  woven  itself  in  nry  heart. 
But  when  I  commenced  my  investigations,  and 
found  that  at  first,  when  infant  baptism  was  invented, 
they  dipped  the  babies,  and  afterward  changed  the 
mode  to  sprinkling,  I  was  naturally  led  to  distrust 


ii2  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

the  whole  thing.  This  was  the  first  invented  mode 
for  saving  the  children.  The  Episcopalians  did  it. 
RTow  if  that  was  right  then,  why  not  dip  the  babes 
now?  If  they  are,  as  some  of  our  writers  say,  to 
be  washed  from  original  sin  by  baptism,  certainly 
dipping  looks  more  like  washing  than  sprinkling  — 
or  than  moistening  the  head  of  the  child  with  a 
finger  dipped  in  a  bowl  of  water. 

Are  you  aware  that  infant  baptism  was  introduced 
into  the  church  on  the  same  ground  as  sprinkling  — 
as  a  means  of  salvation  ? 

M.  Certainly  not;  for,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  found 
in  the  Scriptures. 

P.  But  so  it  was.  Men  began  to  call  the  waters 
of  baptism  the  sacred  waters,  and  to  look  upon 
baptism  as  a  saving  ordinance.  They  taught  that 
infants  rested  under  the  penalty  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression, being  guilty  of  original  sin  and  liable  to  its 
consequences,  being  exposed  to  punishment.  And 
thus,  to  save  them  from  this,  they  must  be  baptized. 
The  inventors  of  infant  baptism  wanted  to  save  the 
children  from  endless  perdition. 

M.     Why,  that  is*  what  we  call  infant  damnation. 

P.  Precisely  so.  And  I  repeat,  to  save  them 
from  being  lost,  the  device  of  infant  baptism  was 
invented.  And  pardon  me,  if  }^ou  think  I  am  too 
severe,  when  I  say,  that  it  is  the  invention  of  priests, 
the  child  of  Popery,  and  unfortunately  has  come  by 
adoption  into  the  Protestant  family.  Here  is  the 
decision  of  a  church  council  [Carthage]  of  which 


Eighth  Conversation,  113 

Augustine  was  president,  affirmed  and  sanctioned 
by  the  Pope,  417  :  "  We  will  that  whosoever  denies  that 
little  children  by  baptism  are  freed  from  perdition  and 
eternally  saved,  let  him  be  accurst3' 

"  The  law  of  baptism,  as  established  by  our  Lord, 
extends  to  all,  insomuch  that  unless  they  are  regen- 
erated through  the  grace  of  baptism,  be  their  parents 
Christians  or  infidels,  they  are  born  to  eternal 
misery  and  everlasting  destruction." — Catechism  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  translated,  by  Donovan,  p.  171. 

Even  John  Wesley  says,  after  endeavoring  to 
prove  that  infants  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation, 
inheriting  sin  from  Adam :  "  The  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life;  and  the 
virtue  of  that  free  gift — the  merits  of  Christ's 
life  and  death  —  are  applied  to  us  in  baptism." 
Again  he  says:  "If  infants  are  guilty  of  original 
sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism;  seeing, 
in  the  ordiyiary  way,  they  can  not  be  saved  unless  this  be 
washed  away  in  baptism." — Doctrinal  Tracts,  pp.  246, 
251. 

M.  But  a  majority  of  our  church  do  not  esteem 
Mr.  Wesley  sound  on  baptism.  From  what  you 
have  quoted,  I  know  I  do  not. 

P.  Then  why  do  you  still  publish  his  writings  ? 
This  is  one  of  your  standard  works,  and  prescribed 
for  the  study  of  young  preachers.  But  let  us  see 
what  your  Discipline  says:  turn  to  pages  131  and 
132,  "  The  ministration  of  baptism  to  infants." 
There  the  administrator  tells  the  people  to  call  upon 


H4  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

God,  "  that  having  redeemed  this  child  by  the  blood 
of  his  Son,  he  will  grant  that  he,  being  baptized  with 
water,  may  also  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
be  received  into  Christ's  holy  church,  and  become  a 
lively  member  of  the  same." 

"  We  beseech  thee  that  of  thine  infinite  mercy 
thou  wilt  look  upon  this  child :  wash  him  and  sanc- 
tify him ;  that  he,  being  saved  by  thy  grace,  may 
be  received  into  Christ's  holy  church." 

"  Sanctify  this  water  for  this  holy  sacrament,  and 
grant  that  this  child  *  *  may  receive  the  full- 
ness of  thy  grace,  and  ever  remain  in  the  number 
of  thy  faithful  and  elect  children." — 133. 

Then  you  say,  page  23,  "  Baptism  is  also  a  sign 
of  regeneration  or  the  new  birth,"  and  that  you 
"  regard  all  children  who  have  been  baptized  as 
placed  in  a  visible  covenant  relation  to  God." — 39. 

What  do  you  think  of  it  ? 

M.  I  don't  believe  any  such  doctrine,  though 
our  Discipline  does  teach  it.  Now  as  you  have  been 
so  plain  with  the  Methodists,  pray  tell  me  what  your 
church  teaches  about  infant  baptism  ?  You  know, 
as  Methodists,  we  are  very  free  in  charging  you  as 
believing  in  infant  damnation. 

P.     I  know  you  are.     Here  is  what  we  say : 

"Baptism  is  the  entrance  into  Christ's  family." — 
Thomas  Hooker. 

"  The  efficacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that 
moment  of  time  wherein  it  is  administered,  yet  not- 
withstanding, by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,  the 


Eighth  Conversation.  115 

grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhib- 
ited and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such 
(whether  of  age  or  infants)  as  that  grace  belongeth 
unto,  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will  in 
his  appointed  time." — Cambridge  Platform,  p.  25. 
[The  same  as  Presbyterian  Conf.  of  Faith,  p.  123.] 

M.  Well,  that  is  surely  strong  enough.  Grace 
"  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and  conferred 
by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

P.     "To  such  as  that  grace  belongeth  unto." 

M.     "  Whether  of  age  or  infants." 

P.  The  words  "  such  as  that  grace  belongeth 
unto,"  are  illustrated  by  the  following:  " Elect 
infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved 
by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when, 
and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth." — Chap.  x.  3. 

Again  :  the  Confession  of  Faith  says  : 

"  The  visible  church  consists  of  all  those  throughout 
the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with 
their  children,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which 
there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation."  Again  it 
says :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  for  the 
solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  into  the 
visible  church,  but  also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  his  ingrafting  into 
Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission  of  sins,  and  of 
his  giving  up  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to 


n6  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

walk  in  newness  of  life." — Confession  of  Faith,  p.  44, 
and  Cambridge  [Congregational]  Platform,  chap.  29. 
Here,  you  see,  we  say  baptism  was  ordained  by 
Christ,  which,  of  course,  includes  infant  baptism. 
And  yet  we  call  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion 
all  baptism,  and  thus  we  make  Christ  the  institutor 
of  all.  Again,  we  baptize  children  into  the  church, 
"out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation."  Does  not  this  look  like  what  I  have 
affirmed  ? 

M.  It  certainly  does.  I  was  not  aware  that  your 
church  held  such  views. 

P.  Now,  if  there  is  no  "  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation"  out  of  the  visible  church,  there  must  be 
some  extraordinary  possibility  of  salvation,  or  else 
the  unbaptized  children  must  be  lost.  If  the 
baptized  children  are  of  the  house  and  family  of 
God,  by  baptism,  the  unbaptized  children  are 
certainly  not  of  the  house  and  family  of  God. 
What  is  to  become  of  them?  "What  is  the  extraor- 
dinary possibility  of  salvation  whereby  they  may  be 
saved  ? 

M.  I  am  sure  I  can  not  tell.  I  never  heard  of 
but  one  way  of  salvation — what  Paul  calls  a  "  com- 
mon salvation." 

P.  Thus,  as  Presbyterians,  we  make  baptism  a 
saving  ordinance. 

M.  It  certainly  seems  so.  But  I  have  never 
thus  viewed  it.  We  can  baptize  infants  without 
believing  in  baptismal  regeneration. 


Eighth  Conversation,  117 

P.  That  may  be.  But  yet,  I  repeat,  that  bap- 
tismal regeneration  was  the  design  of  those  who 
invented  infant  baptism;  and  that  the  same  object 
is  still  maintained  by  a  far  greater  proportion  of  its 
advocates.  Some  say  it  washes  away  original  sin, 
and  cleanses  from  defilement ;  and  thus  original  sin 
attaches  to  all  unbaptized  children.  How  are  they 
to  be  saved  without  baptism  f  Others  say  infant 
baptism  is  purification:  hence  it  must  cleanse  from 
moral  impurity.  How  are  they  to  be  made  clean 
for  heaven  if  they  are  not  purified  ?  And  still  others, 
that  the  children  of  believing  parents  only  are  to  be 
baptized  ;  then  what  is  to  become  of  the  children  of 
the  unbelieving?  Thus,  turn  which  way  you  will, 
you  make  infant  baptism  save  the  child.  Even 
those  who  do  not  pretend  to  believe  in  infant 
baptism  in  a  saving  sense,  can  give  no  reasonable 
argument  for  the  practice.  Besides,  their  action 
condemns  their  declaration.  Why  should  they 
baptize  dying  children  ?  Why,  when  a  child  is 
taken  dangerously  ill,  send  with  all  haste  for  a 
minister  to  baptize  it?  "You  charge  us  with 
believing  in  baptism  being  a  saving  ordinance," 
said  a  Baptisi,  who  had  formerly  been  a  Lutheran 
minister,  to  a  Lutheran;  "and  yet,  when  one  of 
your  unbaptized  children  is  taken  sick,  you'll  run 
your  horse  down  in  going  after  a  minister  to  baptize 
it !"  Does  not  that  look  a  little  like  it  ?  Was  not 
the  child  as  sure  of  heaven  without  as  with  the 
ceremony  ? 


n8  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

The  following  conversation  lately  occurred  be- 
tween a  Baptist  lady  and  a  Lutheran,  and  was 
related  to  me  by  the  lad}^  herself.  It  shows  how 
some  people  are  led  to  believe  in  infant  sprinkling 
by  the  false  teachings  of  others  : 

"  When  are  you  going  to  have  your  baby  bap- 
tized ?"  inquired  the  Lutheran  of  the  Baptist. 

"  Not  till  it  is  old  enough  to  answer  for  itself,'' 
was  the  reply. 

"  Were  the  children  you  lost  baptized  Vs  continued 
the  Lutheran. 

"No." 

"  Why  !"  responded  the  Lutneran,  with  apparent 
horror ;  "  I  wouldn't  stand  in  your  place  for  any 
thing!" 

"  Why  so  ?"  said  the  Baptist. 

"  Because  you  will  have  to  go  to  hell  for  not  hav- 
ing them  baptized." 

"Does  your  father  believe  that?"  inquired  the 
Baptist. 

"Yes,  he  does." 

"  Well,  I'm  astonished  that  such  a  sensible  man 
as  he  appears  should  believe  such  nonsense." 

One  day  a  Methodist  woman  called  at  the  house 
of  a  Baptist  minister  in  the  State  of  New  York,  who 
lived  next  door  to  a  Presbyterian  minister,  mistak- 
ing the  house.  Tears  were  streaming  down  her 
cheeks,  and  she  was  in  great  distress.  She  wished 
him  to  go  and  baptize  her  little  child,  which  she 
thought  was  dying.     He  pitied  her  most  deeply  and 


Eighth  Conversation.  119 

sincerely,  and  inquired  why  she  wished  the  child 
baptized. 

"  I  am  afraid  it  will  not  be  saved  without  it;"  she 
replied. 

He  told  her  to  dismiss  her  fears  on  that  point,  for 
the  child  would  be  saved  just  as  well  without  as 
with  baptism.  "But,"  said  he,  "I  will  gladly  do 
any  thing  I  can  consistently  for  your  child.  If  you 
can  think  of  any  thing  in  the  Bible  which  will 
authorize  me  to  baptize  it,  I  will  go  right  off  and 
do  it." 

She  looked  surprised,  and  replied  that  she  thought 
the  Bible  plainly  taught  infant  baptism. 

"Well,"  said  he,  "if  you  can  think  of  one 
passage,  I  will  ask  no  more." 

She  paused  to  think.  She  thought  of  Christ's 
blessing  little  children.  "But,"  said  she,  "that 
does  not  say  he  baptized  them,  does  it?" 

"Eo,"  he  replied,  "Jesus  blessed  them.  If  you 
desire  it,  I  will  go  and  pray  for  your  child,  and  ask 
God's  blessing  upon  it." 

She  wished  he  would;  so  he  went  to  the  house 
and  prayed  for  the  child,  which  recovered  in  a  few 
days.  This  poor  woman  had  suffered  great  distress 
from  the  false  doctrine  that  her  infant  could  not  be 
saved  unless  baptized. 

M.  I  am  aware  that  circumstances  are  against 
us  —  that  man}-  baptize  dying  children.  I  knew  of 
one  case  where  the  child  was  baptized  after  it  had 
apparently   ceased    to    breathe.     And    one  of   our 


120  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

ministers  had  his  child  baptized  when  nearly  at  the 
point  of  death.  But  such  instances  are  not  very 
common. 

P.  Thus  you  virtually  confirm  what  I  have 
stated.  And,  instead  of  such  occurrences  being  very 
rare,  there  are  tens  of  thousands  of  cases  of  baptiz- 
ing dying  children.  ^Why,  I  heard  the  other  day  of 
a  Congregational  minister  who  called  in  a  Methodist 
minister  to  baptize  his  dying  child. 

31.  But  yet,  infant  baptism  has  always  been  a 
delightful  doctrine  to  me.  There  is  something 
satisfactory  and  soothing  to  the  mind  in  dedicating 
our  children  to  God  in  baptism. 

P.  And  did  not  this  satisfactory  and  soothing 
feeling  arise  from  the  belief,  that  the  salvation  of 
your  child  was  surer  after  it  was  baptized  than  it 
was  before  ? 

M.  To  be  candid,  I  do  not  know  but  what  such 
a  thought  may  have  produced  the  .satisfaction  and 
pleasure  I  felt. 

P.  Just  so.  It  is  the  way  with  all,  when  you  get 
at  the  cause  of  their  action.  And  yet  you  tell  us  you 
do  not  believe  in  infant  baptism  being  a  saving 
ordinance.  There  was  a  man  very  fervent  in  charg- 
ing the  Baptists  with  making  baptism  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  who  talked  loudly  of  non-essentials, 
who  called  upon  a  friend  of  his,  who  had  lost  a 
lovely  but  un sprinkled  child.  "  Wouldn't  you  have 
felt  better,"  said  he,  "if  your  child  had  been  bap- 
tized before  it  died  ?"     "  Better !"  replied  his  friend; 


Eighth  Conversation.  121 

"no,  thank  God,  Christ  takes  care  of  the  children: 
he  saves  them,  and  not  baptism.  But  how  would  you 
have  felt  if  your  child  had  died  before  it  was  sprinkled  I 
If,  as  you  say,  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, how  would  you  have  felt  if  death  had  enforced 
his  claim  when  your  child  was  but  three  days' old?" 

M.  Certainly  he  must  have  felt,  if  he  did  not  look, 
very  foolish  after  such  a  forcible  rejoinder  as  that. 

P.  Similar  to  the  foregoing,  is  a  circumstance 
related  to  me  by  a  gentleman.  Directly  across  the 
street  from  his  residence,  in  a  town  on  the  Hudson, 
lived  a  family  who  regularly  attended  the  Presbyte- 
rian, though  they  were  not  members  of  any,  church. 
They  had  two  sweet  little  daughters,  of  three  and 
five  years  of  age.  Both  were  taken  sick,  and  died 
within  a  few  hours  of  each  other.  The  neighbors 
came  in  to  render  their  kind  offices  and  console  the 
afflicted  parents.  The  Presbyterian  minister's  wife 
was  there.  Some  one  said  to  the  weeping  mother, 
"Your  children  are  better  off  now  than  they  could 
be  in  this  world."  The  minister's  wife  added : 
"  Well,  if  they  had  been  baptized  I  should  have  no 
doubt  of  their  welfare;  but  as  it  is,  I  don't  know." 

31.  That  was  very  consoling  to  a  bereaved 
mother. 

P.  Take  care  you  do  not  condemn  yourself.  If  I 
understand  you,  you  say  you  dedicate  your  children 
to  God  in  baptism.  What  more  virtue  is  there  in 
dedicating  them  in  baptism,  than  in  consecrating 
them  to  him  on  the  altar  of  prayer? 
6 


122  Conversations  on  Baftism, 

M.  I  can  not  say  that  there  is  any  more  virtue  in 
one  than  in  the  other.  Bat  baptism  has  this  advan- 
tage —  it  puts  the  seal  upon  the  child. 

P.  There  it  is  again.  The  same  idea  of  baptism 
being  a  saving  ordinance  in  a  new  dress.  So  your 
child  had  not  a  valid  and  perfect  document  to  entitle 
it  to  a  participation  in  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel, 
without  the  seal  of  baptism.  You  had  to  perfect 
the  instrument  which,  in  the  event  of  its  death,  gave 
it  a  clear  title  to  heaven !  But  you  are  not  alone  in 
your  opinion.  Matthew  Henry,  the  Presbyterian 
commentator,  says:  "  This,  then,  is  the  efficacy  of 
baptism :  it  is  putting  the  child' *s  name  into  the  Gospel 
grant.  We  are  baptized  into  Christ's  death ;  that  is, 
God  doth  in  that  ordinance  seal,  confirm,  and  make 
over  to  as  all  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ.79  Now, 
let  me  ask  you,  what  is  to  become  of  those  children 
whose  parents  do  not  put  their  names  in  the  "  Gospel 
grant  ?"  And  if  all  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death 
are  made  over  to  us  by  God  in  baptism,  what  is  to 
become  of  the  unbapiized  children  ?  How  are  they  to 
receive  any  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death,  when 
they  are  all  made  over  to  the  baptized  ?  Thus  again 
you  make  infant  baptism  necessary  to  salvation. 

M.  [Blushing  with  confusion.]  Well,  brother 
E.,  it  does  seem  a  little  like  what  you  say.  You 
present  the  case  in  a  new  light  to  me.  But  do  you 
say  there  is  no  warrant  for  infant  baptism  in  the 
Bible? 

P.     I  can  not  find  one,  and  I  have  searched  care- 


Eighth  Conversation,  123 

fully  for  it.  Children  are  never  mentioned  in  Bible 
instances  of  baptism.  It  is  said  [see  Matt.  xiv.  21] 
"  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women."  [Acts 
viii.  12.]  But  in  no  case  of  baptism  are  children 
named.  You  can  neither  find  a  command  nor  an 
example  that  authorizes  you  to  baptize  children. 
"He  that  will  find  it  in  the  New  Testament  must 
first  put  it  in  there."  The  point  is  conceded.  Here 
is  what  a  few  learned  authors  say : 

Luther. — "  It  can  not  be  proved  by  the  sacred 
Scriptures  that  infant  baptism  was  instituted  by 
Christ,  or  begun  by  the  first  Christians  after  the 
Apostles." 

Calvin. — "  It  is  no  where  expressly  mentioned  by 
the  evangelists  that  any  child  was  by  the  Apostles 
baptized." 

JSTeander.  —  "It  is  certain  that  Christ  did  not 
ordain  infant  baptism."  Again  he  says:  "We  can 
not  prove  that  the  Apostles  ordained  infant  baptism 
in  those  places  where  the  baptism  of  a  whole  family 
is  mentioned,  as  in  Acts  xvi.  33 ;  1  Cor.  i.  16.  For 
my  part,  I  feel  inadequate  to  the  task."  And  again : 
"  We  have  all  reason  for  not  deriving  infant  baptism 
from  Apostolic  institution." 

Chevalier  Bunsen. — It  "  was  utterly  unknown  to 
the  early  church,  not  only  down  to  the  end  of  the 
second,  but,  indeed,  to  the  middle  of  the  third 
centuries." 

Dr.  Merle  D'Aubigne  —  the  historian  of  the  Refor- 
mation.   "  However  decided  I  may  be  for  the  baptism 


124  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

of  infants,  I  must  nevertheless  acknowledge  that  the 
express  order,  '  Baptize  infants,'  is  found  in  no  part 
of  the  Gospel." — On  the  authority  of  God,  p.  152. 

North  British  Review  —  Presbyterian.  "The 
baptismal  service  is  founded  on  Scripture :  but  its 
application  to  an  unconscious  infant  is  destitute  of 
any  express  scriptural  warrant.  There  is  absolutely 
not  a  single  trace  of  it  to  be  found  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament *  *  *  there  is  not  one  word  which  asserts 
its  existence."—  July,  1852,  pp.  209—12. 

Bishop  Burnet. — "  There  is  no  express  precept 
or  rule  given  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  baptism 
of  infants." — Exposition  of  Articles,  Art.  xxvii. 

Dr.  Woods  —  Presbyterian.  "It  is  a  plain  case, 
that  there  is  no  express  precept  respecting  infant 
baptism  in  our  sacred  writings.  The  proof,  then, 
that  infant  baptism  is  a  divine  institution,  must  be 
made  out  in  another  way." — Lectures  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism, p.  11. 

Professor  Stuart  —  Congregational.  "  Commands, 
or  plain  and  certain  examples,  in  the  New  Testament, 
relative  to  it  [infant  baptism]  I  do  not  find." — Bib. 
Hep.  1833,  p.  385. 

New  American  Encyclopedia. — "  Though  bap- 
tism, as  the  symbol  of  an  inward  change,  was  con- 
ferred at  first  only  upon  converts  to  the  Christian 
faith,  according  to  the  prevailing  modern  opinion  of 
biblical  writers,  yet  at  an  early  period  the  practice 
was  introduced  of  baptizing  infants,  the  church  re- 
quiring security  through  certain  sponsors  that  the 


Eighth  Conversation.  125 

children  should  be  brought  up  to  lead  a  godly  and 
Christian  life." — Infant  Baptism,  p.  595. 

Guebjcke. — "  That  this  rite  [infant  baptism]  was 
actually  practiced  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  is  not, 
indeed,  capable  of  a  strict  and  absolute  demonstra- 
frora  New  Testament  data."  —  Manual  of  Church 
History,  p.  140. 

Coleman. — "  Though  no  instance  of  baptism  by 
sprinkling  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  yet 
there  are  several  cases  in  which  it  is  hardly  possible 
that  it  would  have  been  administered  by  immersion." 
— Ancient  Christianity  Exemplified,  377. 

Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  —  "  I  concede  and 
assert  first,  that  infant  baptism  is  no  where  com- 
manded in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  not  brought 
down  as  a  substitute  for  circumcision." 

"  It  is  true,"  says  the  writer  of  a  tract  on  "  Chris- 
tian Baptism,"  published  by  the  Presbyterians,  "  that 
we  have  no  direct  Scripture  declaration,  saying  in 
so  many  words,  that  children  should  be  baptized." 

Thus,  from  the  testimony  of  Lutherans,  Presby- 
terians, Episcopalians,  and  Congregationalists,  the 
idea  of  Infant  Baptism  being  ordained  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  or  commanded  in  the  Bible,  is 
expressly  denied.  Mr.  Beecher  contends  for  it  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  alone.  He  abandons  and 
runs  away  from  the  field  in  which  Pedobaptists  have 
been  contending  so  long  and  earnestly. 

M.  All  that  may  be  so  with  Mr.  Beecher,  but  I 
know  Congregational  churches,  nevertheless,  who 


126  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

contend  that  infant  baptism  is  an  Apostolical  ordi- 
nance. 

P.  Yes,  and  the  one  I  have  referred  to  says  that 
they  "  receive  and  apply  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  as  instituted  by  Christ,  and 
'practiced  by  the  Apostles;"  and  they  immerse,  pour, 
and  sprinkle.  Thus  emphatically  proclaiming  to  the 
world  that  Christ  instituted  all  these  methods,  and 
infant  baptism,  and  that  the  Apostles  practiced  them. 

M.  Surely,  brother  E.,  you  are  jesting.  How 
can  a  church  take  such  a  contradictory  position  ? 
How  can  they  solemnly  subscribe  to  such  nonsense 
as  that  ? 

P.  ISTo,  I  am  not  jesting.  It  is  the  truth,  how- 
ever absurd  their  article  of  religion  may  be.  But 
where  they  find  it,  is  beyond  my  comprehension. 
Let  them  furnish  the  proof.  Here  is  a  fine  chance 
for  showing  Mr.  Beecher  he  is  wrong,  and  triumph- 
antly "settling"  all  the  opposers  of  infant  baptism. 
After  this,  I  hope  they  will  not  be  satisfied  with  a 
simple  declaration,  but  clinch  it  with  Scripture  —  if 
they  can ! 

But  as  it  is  now  late,  and  as  I  understand  you  have 
something  to  say  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  let  us 
adjourn  till  to-morrow  evening. 


DP^SEl 

^^^^^^ 

||g:-*>WiWM 

^^^^mM 

KMfffflffiJmh^iiffrfr  ■*^^iiitfi)K»iTi  i     inrn&nmgi 

Ninth 


£ 


ONYERSATION. 


Infant  Baptism — Concluded. 


|F1 

ikJ^li 

jF% 

i&S> 

pS"  continuing  the  subject  of  infant  baptism 
Mr.  E.  said : 

"Well,  brother  C,  what  do  you  think 
of  the  concessions  of  our  friends  on  infant 
baptism  ?" 

Methodist.  I  admit  they  are  very  striking;  but 
sometimes  great  men  say  and  do  ridiculous  things; 
and  though  you  may  charge  me  with  presumption, 
let  me  try  if  I  can  not  find  some  clear  cases  of  infant 
baptism  in  the  Scriptures. 

.Presbyterian.  That  is  right.  And  instead  of 
charging  you  with  presumption,  I  commend  you  for 
your  independence.  Truth  is  for  all.  And  your 
opinion,  simply  as  an  opinion,  is  entitled  to  as  much 
consideration  and  respect  as  that  of  the  wisest  of 
men,  not  based  upon  the  Bible.  I  shall  be  glad  to 
look  at  your  examples.  "Which  is  your  first  clear 
case  of  infant  baptism  ? 


128  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

31.  Turn  to  Matthew  xix.  13,  14:  "Then  were 
there  brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he 
should  put  his  hands  on  them  and  pray;  aud  the 
disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said,  suffer  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me ;  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  "  And  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and 
blessed  them." — Mark  x.  16. 

Now,  when  a  minister  takes  little  children  in  his 
arms  and  baptizes  them,  it  looks  like  following  the 
example  of  the  Saviour.  I  never  could  see  why  any 
one  should  be  opposed  to  bringing  the  children  to 
Christ. 

P.  Why  really,  brother  C,  it  is  my  turn  to  be 
astonished  now.  The  verses  you  have  quoted  say 
expressly  that  Christ  took  the  children  into  his  arms 
to  bless,  and  not  to  baptize  them.  Yet  why  should  I 
be  astonished  at  you  more  than  others?  I  know 
there  are  a  great  many  Christians  who  believe 
that  Christ's  blessing  little  children  is  authority  for 
infant  baptism.  I  once  believed  it.  Even  many 
ministers,  when  baptizing  the  precious  children, 
quote  the  Saviour's  words  with  such  frequency  and 
fervency,  as  to  justify  us  in  concluding  that  they 
consider  his  example  as  authority  for  baptizing 
them. 

M.     Of  course  they  do. 

P.  But  Christ's  blessing  the  children  was  not 
baptism.  He  taught  a  lesson  altogether  different  to 
what  Pedobaptists  teach.     He  says,  "  Of  such  is  the 


Ninth  Conversation, 


129 


kingdom  of  heaven,"  whether  baptized  or  not;  and 
we  say,  many  of  us  at  least,  "  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  if  they  are  baptized. 


THE   BIBLE  AND   THE  BAPTISTS 

say: 
"  Jesus  took  little  children  in 
his  arms  and  blessed  them." 


PEDOBAPTISTS   SAY  : 

Jesus  took  little  children  in 
his  arms  and  sprinkled  them  ! 


Those  who  are  opposed  to  infant  baptism  are  more 
liberal  than  we.  They  say  all  the  children  go  to 
heaven  at  death;  but  we  only  open  the  door  to  the 
baptized.  They  give  them  all  to  Christ;  but  we  only 
give  him  the  baptized  children.  Who  loves  the 
children  the  most?  Some  of  our  ministers  have 
said  that  "  there  are  only  two  places  where  there  are 
no  children  —  a  Baptist  church  and  hell!"  What 
do  you  think  of  that?  Talk  about  the  Baptists 
being  severe  on  us !  why  some  of  our  friends  can 
out-Herod  Herod  in  their  scurrilous  abuse  of  the 
Baptists.  Now  if  I  had  been  a  Baptist,  I  could  have 
retorted  that  they  had  forgotten  a  part  of  their  creed; 
that  since  they  had  shut  out  the  unbaptized  children  from 
heaven,  I  should  like  to  know  what  they  had  done 
with  them !  I  could  also  have  told  them  that  there 
is  still  another  place  where  there  are  no  children  — 
a  Pedobaptist  communion  table :  that  after  the}'  have 
baptized  them  into  the  church,  calling  them  young 
Christians,  well-pleasing  to  God,  they  fence  them 
from  the  Lord's  table  ! 

M.  Well,  I  must  admit  that  baptism  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  example  of  Christ,  and  I  do  not  see 
6* 


130  Conversations  on  Baptism,. 

but  what  I  shall  have  to  abandon  it  as  proof  of 
infant  baptism. 

P.     What  is  your  next  clear  case? 

M.  The  jailor's  family.  [Reads  the  narrative, 
Acts  xvi.  25-34.]  Thus,  you  see,  the  jailor  "  was 
baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway."  There  must 
certainly  have  been  children  there. 

P.  Where  do  you  find  them  ?  It  is  for  you  to 
prove  it.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  you.  But 
let  us  look  at  the  particulars :  1.  The  "  Word  of 
the  Lord"  was  preached  unto  the  jailor,  "and  to  all 
that  were  in  his  house."  2.  Then  they  were  bap- 
tized. 3.  Then  it  is  said,  "  he  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God^  with  all  his  house."  Did  the  jailor  u  believe  in 
God"  for  "  all  his  house,"  or  did  "  all  that  were  in 
his  house"  believe  in  God  ? 

M.     The  latter,  of  course.     That  is  plain. 

P.  You  concede  all  I  ask.  Now,  if  you  contend 
that  the  words  "  all  his  house,"  and  "  all  that  were 
in  his  house,"  imply  children,  then,  as  you  say, 
they  were  large  enough  to  "believe  in  God;"  and, 
of  course,  proper  subjects  for  baptism.  And  I 
suppose  our  Baptist  friends  would  be  quite  willing 
to  baptize  such  believing  children,  to  whom  the 
"Word  of  God  had  been  preached.  But  then,  again, 
I  say  it  is  for  you  to  prove  it.  But  where  are  the 
babes?  How  could  they  "  believe  in  God?"  Did 
Paul  and  Silas  preach  to  them?  Did  they  believe? 
When  my  attention  was  particularly  drawn  to  this 
fact,  I  was  sorely  puzzled;  but  I  would  not  yield. 


Ninth  Conversation,  131 

t0ur  friends  had  thrust  the  babes  so  forcibly  irrto  the 
jailor's  family,  that  I  believed  it  all  true.  True,  I 
could  not  find  them  in  the  narrative,  but  that  made 
no  difference ;  there  they  must  be,  and  there  I  would 
have  them.  But  the  words,  "  believing  in  God  with 
all  his  house,"  kept  so  ringing  in  my  ears,  that  I  was 
compelled  at  last  to  admit  there  were  no  babes  there. 
A  short  time  ago  I  heard  a  Baptist  minister  declare 
that  he  baptized  a  jailor  and  all  his  house,  compris- 
ing six  persons.  I  have  heard  of  one  church  where 
there  are  four  baptized  households,  and  not  a  baby 
in  any  of  them.  It  is  quite  common  to  find  baptized 
households;  and  I  see  no  reason  for  making  the 
scriptural  examples  any  more  a  cause  of  wonder 
than  the  examples  of  our  day. 

M.  Well,  brother  E.,  you  certainly  put  the  case 
in  a  strange  and  novel  manner.  I  never  saw  it  thus 
before.  They  must  have  been  curious  "babes"  to 
do  all  this.  But  what  do  you  say  of  Lydia's  house- 
hold. "  She  was  baptized,  and  her  household." — 
Acts  xvi.  15. 

P.  What  I  have  said  of  the  jailor's  family  in 
part  applies  to  Lydia.  Lydia  was  from  Thyatira,  a 
city  of  Lydia,  a  province  in  Asia  Minor.  She  is 
probably  called  Lydia  from  being  a  citizen  of  the 
province  of  that  name.  I  do  not  say  positively,  for 
there  is  no  proof  of  the  fact.  She  was  at  Philippi, 
which  was  "  the  chief  city  of  that  part  of  Macedonia," 
a  country  in  the  northeast  of  Europe.  Her  business 
there  was  to  sell  purple,  no  doubt  doing  business 


132  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

at  Philippi  transiently  as  a  merchant,  as  was  the 
custom  at  the  east.  The  art  of  dyeing  purple  was 
particularly  cultivated  at  Thyatira,  and  was  in  great 
demand  in  other  countries.  E~ow,  if  you  will  get 
your  map,  you  will  see  that  Lydia  was  a  great  way 
from  home,  having  to  cross  the  ^Egean  sea  to  get 
from  Thyatira  to  Philippi. 

M.  You  are  correct  in  your  geographical  account, 
but  what  has  that  to  do  with  her  baptism  ?  Are 
you  not  condemning  yourself  by  indulging  in  suppo- 
sitions? How  do  you  know  she  was  a  merchant  and 
a  transient  visitor  at  Philippi  ? 

P.  From  what  the  Bible  says:  "She  was  of  the 
city  of  Thyatira,"  and  a  "  seller  of  purple."  ISTow, 
is  it  likely  to  suppose  that  she  would  be  so  far  from 
home  on  business,  with  helpless  babes,  as  you 
assume  ? 

M.     Well,  it  does  seem  rather  improbable. 

P.  Certainly  it  is  improbable.  But  let  us  look 
at  her  baptism.  The  baptism  took  place  at  the 
river.  "  And  on  the  Sabbath  we  went  out  of  the 
city,  by  a  river  side,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made,  and  we  sat  down,  and  spake  unto  the  women 
which  resorted  thither." — Acts  xvi.  13.  A  very 
convenient  place  for  immersion,  was  it  not?  "  And 
a  certain  woman,  named  I/ydia,  a  seller  of  purple, 
of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshiped  God, 
heard  us :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she 
attended  to  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul." 
— 14.     "And  when    she  wyas    baptized,   and    her 


Ninth  Conversation.  133 

household,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged 
me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house, 
and  abide  there." — 15.  So  you  see  that  Lydia  and 
her  household  Were  baptized  in  the  river,  and  that 
the  Apostles  were  not  in  her  house  until  after  the 
baptism.  In  the  fortieth  verse,  Lydia's  household 
are  counted  among  "  the  brethren."  The  jailor's  and 
Lydia's  household  were  the  only  disciples  in  the 
city. 

M.  I  have  always  supposed  that  Lydia  was  bap- 
tized in  her  house.  Our  preachers  never  tell  us 
about  the  prayer-meeting,  and  the  baptism  at  the 
river.  I  have  heard  much  about  Lydia's  household 
being  an  example  of  infant  baptism,  but  somehow 
they  forgot  to  mention  that  they  were  baptized  in 
the  river. 

P.  Again  :  you  will  see  that  it  was  to  the  women 
that  "  resorted "  to  the  river,  "  where  prayer  was 
wont  to  be  made,"  that  the  Apostles  preached. 
There  were  no  babes  there.     Now,  your  next  case. 

M.  The  household  of  Stephanus.  "And  I  bap- 
tized also  the  household  of  Stephanus." — 1  Cor.  i.  16. 

P.  I  need  not  dwell  on  that.  "Ye  know  the 
house  of  Stephanus,"  says  Paul  (1  Cor.  xvi.  15.), 
"  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry 
of  the  saints."     There  were  no  babes  there. 

M.  Well,  let  that  pass.  Now  for  the  household 
of  Cornelius.     [See  Acts    x.] 

P.  Of  Cornelius  it  is  said  he  was  "  a  devout  man, 
and  one  that  feared  God  with  all  his  house." — 2. 


134  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

The  angel  told  him  to  send  for  Peter,  "  who  shall  tell 
thee  words,  whereby  thou  and  all  thy  house  shall  be  saved." 
—  xi.  14.  When  Peter  came  and  "began  to  speak, 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them."  — 15.  Do  babes 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost?  Cornelius  and  his  house- 
hold received  the  Holy  Ghost.  Could  babes  receive 
the  words  whereby  all  the  house  were  to  be  saved? 

M.  But  what  do  you  make  of  the  baptism  of 
Crispus  ?  "And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house;  and 
many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were 
baptized." — Acts  xviii.  8. 

P.  I  make  of  this  case,  what  I  made  of  the 
jailor's.  "  Crispus  believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his 
house."  Now,  it  is  for  you,  if  you  will  have  babes 
there,  to  show  me  how  they  could  "  believe  in  the 
Lord."  Have  you  any  more  "clear  examples"  of 
infant  baptism  ? 

31.  No,  I  think  not.  And  I  must  confess  that  I 
have  made  out  a  very  poor  case. 

P.  You  have  the  sympathy  of  all  who  have 
tried  it.  It  never  can  be  proved  that  there  were 
baptized  babes  in  these  families.  It  is  all  based  on 
the  suppositions  of  fanciful  imaginations. 

M.  I  do  not  see  why  our  ministers  should  persist 
in  quoting  these  examples  in  proof  of  infant  baptism, 
when  we  can  not  find  the  babes  there. 

P.  Find  them  !  no  ;  hunt  for  them  as  we  may. 
And  yet  they  will  have  them  there,  in  spite  of  what 


Ninth  Conversation.  135 

the  Bible  teaches.  We  take  the  responsibility,  and 
thrust  imaginary  babes  into  babeless  families. 

M.  I  have  always  looked  upon  infant  baptism  as 
coming  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  Circumcision 
was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  And 
as  the  children  were  circumcised  then,  so  the  child- 
ren are  to  be  baptized  now.  Baptism  is  a  seal  of 
the  covenant. 

P.  That  infant  baptism  does  not  come  in  the 
place  of  circumcision  is  clearly  evident  from  the 
following  facts : 

1.  Abraham  when  he  was  circumcised  was  ninety- 
nine  years  old  (Gen.  xvii.  24.),  and  twenty-four  years 
before  he  believed  in  God,  when  it  was  accounted 
to  him  for  righteousness. 

2.  God  commanded  the  Jews  to  be  circumcised. 
He  has  not  commanded  infants  to  be  baptized. 

3.  The  male  children  of  the  Jews  were  circum- 
cised, and  not  the  females. 

4.  They  were  circumcised  when  eight  days  old. 

5.  All  the  male  servants,  both  young  and  old, 
were  required  to  be  circumcised. 

6.  The  children  were  to  be  circumcised  by  the 
parents,  and  not  by  the  priests. 

7.  Circumcision  was  a  literal,  outward  act,  and 
was  to  distinguish  the  Jews  as  a  people  or  nation. 
It  conferred  no  spiritual  grace,  nor  made  the  Israel- 
ites the  spiritual  children  of  God.  If  circumcision 
introduced  the  circumcised  into  a  spiritual  relation, 
then  was  the  entire  Jewish  nation  a  spiritual  people, 


136  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

which  we  know  was  not  the  fact.  The  Ishmaelites 
practiced  circumcision.  They  did  not  enjoy  a  spirit- 
ual relation  to  God.  If  circumcision  introduced  the 
Jews  into  a  spiritual  relation  to  God,  and  as  you  say 
baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision,  then  bap- 
tism introduces  the  baptized  into  a  spiritual  relation 
too,  and,  consequently,  makes  them  the  children  of 
God.  Thus,  again,  you  make  baptism  a  saving 
ordinance! 

M.  But  was  not  circumcision  a  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant, whereby  the  children  were  sealed  over  to  God  ? 
Does  it  not  bring  them  into  a  covenant  relation  to 
him  ? 

P.  The  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the 
seal,  was  a  literal  covenant,  wherein  God  promised 
to  give  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  the  land  of  Canaan. 
It  was  the  mark  of  identity  of  Abraham's  seed,  as 
well  as  the  sign  of  God's  promise  to  give  him  and 
his  seed  the  goodly  land.  How  can  baptism  bring 
a  child  into  covenant  relation  to  God?  •  A  covenant 
can  not  be  entered  into  by  a  child ;  neither  has  any 
one  the  right  at  baptism  to  covenant  for  the  child. 
A  parent  or  sponsor  may  agree  to  do  something  of 
themselves  for  the  child;  but  the  child  has  no  voice 
in  it.  Baptism  is  a  different  thing.  It  is  a  voluntary 
act  of  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  individual  bap- 
tized. It  is  an  act  of  intelligence  —  something  to  be 
understood  —  all  of  which  the  child  is  ignorant  of. 
Again:   how   can   baptism  come  in   the  place   of 


Ninth  Conversation.  137 

circumcision,  when  circumcision  has  never  been 
abolished? 

M.  Well,  brother  E.,  you  overturn  all  my 
theories. 

P.  Your  theories  are  but  the  opinions  of  others ; 
aud  because  theories,  are  so  easily  overturned  by 
facts.  Now  let  me  ask  you,  into  what  kind  of  a 
relation  does  infant  baptism  bring  the  children? 
What  does  it  do  for  them  ?  As  infant  baptism  con- 
veys no  spiritual  benefit  to  the  child,  of  what  advan- 
tage is  it  ?  What  advantage  have  the  baptized  above 
the  unbaptized  children? 

M.     I  am  at  a  loss  to  reply  to  your  question. 

P.  I  am  not  surprised  at  your  answer.  I  have 
never  found  a  Pedobaptist  who  could  answer  it  with- 
out affirming  infant  baptism  to  be  essential  to  salva- 
tion. There  is  a  vast  amount  of  contradiction  among 
the  advocates  of  infant  baptism  themselves.  Some 
say  it  is  necessary  for  salvation.  "  Wall,  Ham- 
mond, and  others,  predicate  it  on  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism.  Owen,  Jennings,  and  many  others,  reject 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  and  predicate  it  on  circum- 
cision. Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  and  many  others, 
reject  circumcision.  Beza,  Doddridge,  and  others, 
teach  that  children  are  holy,  and  are  therefore  to  be 
baptized.  Wesley  and  his  disciples  teach  that  they 
are  unholy,  and  must  be  baptized  to  cleanse  them 
from  their  defilement.  Burder,  Dwight,  and  others, 
baptize  no  infants  but  those  of  Christian  parents,  all 
of  whom  they  say  are  born  in  the  church,  and  are 


138  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

therefore  entitled  to  its  ordinances;  on  the  other 
hand,  Baxter,  Henry,  and  others,  baptized  infants 
to  bring  them  into  the  church/'  Here  you  see  a 
perfect  babel  of  opinions  on  the  subject.  How  can 
we  believe  that  an  institution  that  causes  so  many 
contradictory  and  absurd  notions  is  of  God? 

A  Baptist  minister  traveling  in  Iowa,  stopped  at  a 
Methodist  camp  meeting,  and  on  Saturday  was  re- 
quested to  preach.  He  did  so,  his  subject  being 
"the  duty  of  Christian  parents  to  their  children,  in 
view  of  future  results."  Iu  one  of  his  illustrations 
he  showed  the  great  care  some  farmers  took  in  pre- 
serving their  seed  corn,  above  that  which  they  mani- 
fested in  the  spiritual  welfare  of  their  children.  On 
Sabbath  morning  the  Methodist  preached,  the  Bap- 
tist being  in  the  stand.  At  the  close  of  his  sermon, 
the  Methodist  called  on  parents  to  bring  their  child- 
ren for  baptism,  at  the  same  time  saying,  "  As  our 
Baptist  brother  spoke  of  children  being  the  seed- 
corn  of  the  church,  we  will  now  attend  to  preserving 
it."  To  which  the  Baptist  promptly  replied :  uJt 
is  not  customary  to  put  seed-corn  to  soak  ten  or 
twenty  years  before  using  it."  The  effect  was  instan- 
taneous and  ludicrous  on  the  congregation  ;  and  the 
Methodist  laughingly  replied  :  "Brother,  you  have 
got  me  this  time !"  The  result  was,  not  as  many 
infants  were  sprinkled  as  had  been  expected. 

M,  But  you  can  not  say  that  infant  baptism  does 
no  good.  Does  it  not  exert  over  the  baptized  a 
restraining  influence?      Does  it  not  throw  around 


Ninth  Conversation*  139 

them  a  charm?  and  are  they  not  eventually  more 
likely  to  be  converted  ? 

P.  Certainly  I  say  it  does  no  good.  It  is  a  posi- 
tive evil.  It  has  destroyed  the  spirituality  and  power 
of  churches,  by  filling  them  with  an  unconverted 
membership,  producing  formality,  and  culminating 
in  the  denial  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion. 
The  infidelity  of  France  and  Germany  has  its  root 
in  infant  baptism.  It  is  the  great  feeder  of  all  State 
religions,  and  essentially  necessary  to  the  union  of 
Church  and  State.  It  purports  to  be  of  God,  when 
it  is  the  invention  of  men.  It  assumes  power  to  save 
the  children.  It  is  a  charm  that  lulls  the  soul  to 
sleep,  causing  men  to  believe  that  their  salvation  is 
secure  because  they  have  been  baptized  in  infancy, 
and  united  with  the  church.  It  tries  to  supplant, 
and  would,  if  universal,  believer's  baptism.  "  It  con- 
flicts with  a  fundamental  principle  of  Christianity  — 
soul  liberty,  or  the  undisturbed  and  undisputed  right 
of  every  person  to  serve  and  worship  his  Creator  in 
the  form  and  manner  he  may  choose :  but  if  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  his  baptism  and  his  church  relation 
are  chosen  for  him;  and  he  is  taught  that  to  reject 
his  baptism  is  very  sinful."  "  It  does  by  proxy 
what  would  give  very  great  joy  to  believers,  if  they 
were  left  to  act  for  themselves."  It  assumes  to  be 
sustained  by  the  Scriptures,  when  there  is  neither  a 
command  nor  an  example  for  it.  It  places  a  yoke 
upon  our  children  which  weighs  them  down  in  all 
time  to  come. 


140  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Well  has  it  been  said,  that  "  the  right  of  choice  in 
baptism  and  church  membership  is  wrested  away 
forever  from  children.  Will  you  claim  for  the  man 
a  l  perfect  freedom  in  attaching  himself  to  such  de- 
nomination as  he  shall  choose,'  but  virtually  annul 
the  privilege,  by  joining  him  to  a  church  when  a 
child  ?  Will  you  claim  for  the  man  a  choice  in  bap- 
tism, but  forestal  him  in  the  choice  while  he  is  yet  a 
babe?  Shutting  him  up  to  the  opinions  of  others 
unless  he  will  join  in  an  'affront  to  the  Christian 
world,'  by  submitting  to  be  '  re-baptized.'  Shall 
childhood,  in  its  innocence  and  helplessness,  be 
despoiled  of  its  freedom  ?  Will  you  wring  from  the 
tender  hand  of  infancy  what  you  dare  not  ask  of 
manhood  ?  Oh  !  at  every  point  this  practice  infringes 
Christian  principle.  As  the  truth  advances  it  must 
die." 

What  right  have  sponsors  —  godfathers  and  god- 
mothers—  to  step  in  the  place  of  the  child,  and 
assume  what  they  do  in  baptism,  and  that,  too,  when 
they  are  unconverted? 

M.  There  is  great  weight  in  what  you  say.  I 
have  been  at  a  loss  myself  to  understand  why  uncon- 
verted men  and  women  should  stand  sponsors  for 
children  at  baptism;  and  why  the  children  of  un- 
godly parents  should  be  baptized.  But  by  some  it 
is  viewed  only  as  a  form. 

P.  Yes,  I  know  it  is  so  looked  upon  by  some ; 
but  that  does  not  make  it  the  less  wrons;.  It  is  a 
piece  of  the  same  cloth  from  the  loom  of  human 


Ninth  Conversation,  141 

inventions.  On  a  certain  occasion  a  wedding  occurred 
in  an  Episcopal  family,  the  minister  being  called 
from  a  neighboring  town.  There  being  an  unbap- 
tized  infant  in  the  family,  the  parents  thought  it  a 
favorable  time  to  have  the  baby  baptized;  and  after 
the  wedding  presented  it  for  baptism.  But  the  trou- 
ble was  to  find  a  "godfather"  who  would  stand 
sponsor  for  the  child.  There  being  no  other  pre- 
sent who  was  willing  to  take  this  position,  a  clever, 
but  wild  harum-scarum  chap,  the  ringleader  of  all 
the  fun  and  frolic  of  the  town,  offered  his  services, 
which  were  promptly  accepted.  The  ceremony  pro- 
ceeded until  the  minister  required  the  godfather,  in 
behalf  of  the  child,  to  renounce  the  world,  the  flesh, 
and  the  devil,  and  to  live  a  prayerful,  holy,  and  godly 
life ;  when  he,  thinking  this  was  too  much  for  him 
to  promise  in  so  solemn  a  manner,  cried  out: 

"  Hold  on  !    hold  on  !     I  don't  know  about  that." 

Bat  the  minister  soothingly  replied :  "  Oh,  it's 
only  a  form  —  only  a  form." 

"  Well,"  said  the  godfather,  "  if  it's  only  a  form, 
you  may  go  ahead  !" 

Thus  showing,  with  all  his  frolic  and  fun,  he  had 
more  conscience,  in  reference  to  sacred  things,  than 
this  pretended  successor  of  the  Apostles. 

It  is  just  as  right  for  wicked  people  to  stand 
sponsors,  and  for  the  children  of  ungodly  parents  to 
be  baptized,  as  it  is  for  a  minister  to  sprinkle  them. 
The  whole  thing  is  a  fabrication,  and  has,  to  a  fear- 
ful extent,  been  the  curse  of  the  world.     Look  at 


142  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

the  tens  of  thousands  who  are  now  counted  church 
members  by  infant  baptism,  who  have  never  been 
regenerated,  and  you  will  see  enough  to  make  you 
shudder.  Look  at  the  Roman  Catholic,  Episcopalian, 
and  Lutheran  churches  in  Europe,  and  see  what  an 
alarming  state  of  things  it  has  produced.  Infidelity, 
Sabbath-breaking,  drunkenness,  profanity,  etc.,  are 
unblushingly  advocated  and  practiced  by  those  who 
are  church  members  by  infant  baptism.  It  is  all  a 
natural  result.  Like  begets  like.  A  spiritual  church 
is  not  to  be  expected  from  an  unconverted  church 
membership. 

M.  That  is  certainly  a  very  dark  and  gloomy 
picture. 

P.  But  not  as  deeply  colored  as  the  original. 
First,  usurping  the  place  of  God's  ordinance,  Infant 
Baptism  has  marched  on  in  strife,  persecuting, 
fining,  imprisoning,  and  martyring  those  who  would 
not  bow  down  to  it,  and  submit  to  its  ungodly 
assumptions.  Many  a  poor  victim  has  been  offered 
to  appease  the  persecuting  spirit  it  created,  and  the 
unjust  and  cruel  laws  it  enacted. 

"Late  as  1611,  the  very  year  in  which  James 
published  the  common  English  Bible,  he  carefully 
burnt  the  body  of  that  sturdy  old  Baptist,  Edward 
"Wightman,  in  the  streets  ot  Lichfield,  that  English- 
men might  have  a  good  light  to  read  its  Baptist 
truths  by.  Wightman's  crime  consisted  in  saying, 
'  that  the  baptizing  of  infants  is  an  abominable 
custom :    that  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism  are 


Ninth  Conversation,  143 

not  to  be  celebrated  as  they  are  now  practiced  in 
the  Church  of  England.'  " 

Look,  again,  at  the  consequences  of  baptizing 
infants  into  the  church : 

"  Infants,  on  being  baptized,  become  members  of 
the  church.  They  are  necessarily  at  that  time  desti- 
tute of  faith  in  Christ.  How  large  a  proportion  of 
them  grow  up,  live,  and  die,  without  that  faith. 
Yet  all  the  time  they  are  members  of  the  church, 
and  entitled  to  take  part  in  the  management  of  its 
affairs.  What  kind  of  society  has  it  become  ?  What 
kind  of  society  must  it  become,  under  such  a  process? 
It  must  mainly  consist  of  the  unregenerate  —  of 
persons  who  have  no  sympathy  whatever  with 
spiritual  truth  and  spiritual  worship  —  and  who  will 
therefore  be  prepared  to  patronize  any  arrangements 
which  will  gratify  the  gay,  the  sensual,  ambitious 
tendencies  of  human  nature.  As  there  is  nothing 
apostolic  in  the  elements  of  such  a  church,  we  may 
expect  a  wide  departure  from  apostolic  rule  and 
practice.  A  society  so  constituted  will  determine 
to  have  its  own  way,  and  will  care  but  little  for  the 
will  of  its  Divine  Master.  Christianity,  placed  in 
such  hands,  will  inevitably  suffer  loss  and  corruption. 

"  So  it  has  proved.  All  ecclesiastical  history 
confirms  it. 

"  The  downward  progress  began  in  the  second 
century.  It  was  fearfully  rapid  in  the  fourth  and 
two  following  centuries.  What  was  then  called  the 
Christian  church  had  become  a  great  worldly  corpo- 


144  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

ration,  polluted  with  worldly  lusts,  and  prepared  for 
any  further  amount  of  worldliness  which  the  devil 
might  induce  its  members  to  receive. 

"If  the  Christians  of  the  second  century  had  not 
given  up  the  sufficiency  and  sole  authority  of  the 
Word  of  God  —  and  if,  as  one  of  the  results  of  that 
surrender,  in  the  next  and  succeeding  centuries, 
infant  baptism  had  not  been  introduced,  flooding 
the  church  with  the  ungodly  —  apostolic  Christi- 
anity would  have  been  preserved  —  Popery  would 
have  been  an  impossibility,  and  national  churches 
could  not  have  existed.  Then,  instead  of  being 
compelled  to  accord  the  title  of  '  Christian'  to  men 
of  no  religion,  because  they  happen  to  be  members 
of  churches  which  have  so  awfully  backslidden  from 
primitive  purity,  we  should  have  seen  the  line 
of  separation  between  the  church  and  the  world 
broadly  marked,  and  membership  granted  to  those 
only  who  afforded  satisfactory  evidence  of  union 
with  Christ.  Incalculable  mischiefs  and  miseries 
have  flowed  from  the  evils  above  mentioned. 
Christianity  will  not  be  restored  to  its  first  lustre 
till  these  wrongs  are  redressed.  Bartholomew 
Hubmeyer's  words  (lie  was  a  Baptist  martyr,  who 
suffered  at  the  stake  in  1528,)  are  very  significant, 
and  deserve  to  be  seriously  considered  by  all  the 
friends  of  Christian  reformation.  'I  believe  and 
know,'  he  said,  '  that  Christendom  shall  not  receive 
its  rising  aright,  unless  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  are  brought  to  their  original  purity.' " 


Ninth  Conversation,  145 

The  infidels  of  Europe  are  not  so  much  to  blame, 
after  all  we  have  said  against  them.  They  saw  the 
open  wickedness  in  our  churches,  which  were  filled 
with  unconverted  members  by  infant  baptism,  but 
instead  of  tracing  all  this  to  the  corrupt  fountain, 
infant  baptism,  they  wrongfully  attributed  it  to 
Christianity  itself;  and  thus,  instead  of  attacking 
the  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration  as  the  cause, 
they  aimed  their  blows  at  the  divinity  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

Thus  our  inventions  turn  upon  us  to  torment  us.  The 
means  we  have  invented  to  save  the  children  and  increase 
the  membership  of  our  churches,  are  corrupting  and 
destroying  us  —  eating  the  very  life  out  of  us. 

In  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  how  can  you  say  that 
infant  baptism  does  good?  Now, in  answer  to  your 
question,  are  not  those  baptized  in  infancy  more 
likely  to  become  converted  than  those  who  are  not? 
I  emphatically  say,  No!  In  one  church,  with  a 
membership  of  sixty,  and  some  of  these  immersed, 
only  about  fifteen  of  those  sprinkled  in  infancy 
profess  conversion.  In  a  neighboring  church  of 
about  ninety  members,  where  immersion  is  exclu- 
sively practiced,  they  have  thirty-six  young  Chris- 
tians ! 

I  have  seen  a  well  authenticated  statement  similar 

to  mine.     The  following  report  was  made  by  "  The 

Baltimore    Sabbath    School    Superintendents'   and 

Teachers'  Association,"  and  published  in  the  True 

Union,  1851 : 

7 


146 


Conversations  on  Bafttism. 


SCHOOLS. 


Protestant  Episcopal. . 

Presbyterian(01d  Sch'l) 

(New  School) 

English  Lutheran 

Methodist  Episcopal. . . 
Baptist 


NO.    ATTEND- 
ING. 


1,161 

726 
300 
553 
4,556 
761 


PROF.  OF 
RELIGION. 


28 
8 

6 

37 

220 

143 


PROPORTION. 

1 

in 

41H 

1 

u 

90% 

1 

(( 

50 

1 

<< 

15 

1 

u 

20^: 

1 

l( 

5^ 

It  will  be  seen  by  this  table  that  the  Baptists 
have  nearly  three  times  as  many  professors  of  religion 
in  their  schools,  in  proportion  to  the  number  attend- 
ing, as  any  other  denomination ;  and  seventeen  times 
as  many  as  are  in  the  Old  School  Presbyterian 
Church,  one  of  the  strongest  advocates  of  infant 
baptism. 

"  In  the  part  of  the  State  of  New  York,"  says  a 
minister  of  the  Gospel,  "  where  I  resided  during  the 
great  revival  of  1831  and  1832,  the  proportion  in 
favor  of  the  Baptists  was  still  greater.  Hence  it 
appears  that  infant  baptism,  so  far  from  being  a 
help,  is  a  real  hindrance  to  early  conversion." 

M.     The  facts  are  again  against  me. 

P.  Yes,  and  they  ought  to  convince  every  candid 
mind  that  the  tree  which  has  been  planted  in  the 
churches  by  human  power,  and  which  we  have 
guarded  and  cherished  so  tenderly,  does  not  produce 
the  right  kind  of  fruit. 

M.  Surely  it  seems  so  from  this,  and  the  sooner 
it  is  cut  down  the  better. 


Ninth  Conversation, 


147 


P.  And  cut  down  it  will  be.  The  charm  of  infant 
baptism,  as  you  have  called  it,  is  broken.  In  some 
churches  very  little  is  said  about  it  in  comparison 
with  the  past.  The  practice  is  going  gradually  out 
of  use;  and  the  time  is  coming  when  good  men  will 
be  astonished  and  ashamed  to  find  that  it  was  ever 
tolerated  in  the  churches.  God  wTill  complete  its 
destruction  in  his  own  good  time. 

"  Infant  Baptism,  linked  inseparably  in  its  origin 
to  the  dogma  of  Baptismal  Regeneration,  and  accus- 
tomed so  long  to  its  companionship,  can  you  wonder 
that  it  grieves  for  it  now,  and  like  Rachel,  weeping 
for  her  children,  refuses  to  be  comforted?  It  is 
cruel  to  part  them.  The  recent  decline  of  the  one 
is  owing  in  no  small  degree  to  its  partial  separation 
from  the  other.  Born  at  one  birth,  were  these  two 
children  of  superstition  —  one  was  the  older  by  so 
little  that  the  other  grasped  his  heel  —  the  elder 
should  have  had  preeminence,  but  the  younger  stole 
his  birthright;  yet  ever,  as  he  speaks,  one  thinks 
with  the  grand  old  patriarch,  that  '  the  voice  is  the 
voice  of  Jacob,  but  the  hand  is  the  hand  of  Esau/ 


» 


Tenth      C 


ENTH        LONYERSATION. 


Showing  how  the  Ordinance  of  Baptism  was  Changed,  and  who 

Changed  it. 


FTER  the  usual  friendly  greetings,  Mr.  C, 
whose  countenance  indicated  that  he  was 
anxious  to  commence  the  Conversation 
for  the  evening,  said  : 
Methodist.  Well,  brother  E.,  I  am  clearly  con- 
vinced that  immersion  was  practiced  by  John, 
Christ's  disciples,  and  the  Apostles,  and  that  it  was 
also  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church;  and  that 
being  the  case,  both  pouring  and  sprinkling  must 
be  human  contrivances. 

Presbyterian.  Yes,  it  is  self-evident,  that  as 
immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
primitive  church,  pouring  and  sprinkling  are  inno- 
vations. "  The  custom  of  the  ancient  churches," 
as  Bishop  Taylor  says,  "  was  not  sprinkling,  but 
immersion;  in  pursuance  of  the  sense  of  the  word 
(baptize)  in  the  commandment,  and  the  example  of 
our  blessed   Saviour."     But  there  is  another  kind 


Tenth  Conversation,  149 

of  testimony  I  wish  to  introduce  here,  and  which  I 
have  referred  to  in  our  previous  Conversations. 

It  is  admitted  by  Pedobaptists  themselves  that 
they  have  changed  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  or, 
rather,  that  they  have  introduced  sprinkling  and  pouring 
into  the  church  in  violation  of  the  commandments  of  Christ. 
Of  course  the  admission  proves  the  truth  of  immersion 
as  the  primitive  baptism. 

Says  Matthies,  a  distinguished  scholar  of  Ger- 
many, "  In  the  apostolical  church,  in  order  that  a 
communion  with  the  death  of  Christ  misfit  be  si^ni- 
fied,  the  whole  body  of  the  person  to  be  baptized 
was  immersed  in  the  water  or  river,  and  then,  in 
order  that  a  connection  with  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  might  be  indicated,  the  body  again  emerged, 
or  was  raised  out  of  the  water.  That  this  rite  has 
been  changed  is,  indeed,  to  be  lamented;  for  it  placed 
before  the  eyes  most  aptly,  the  symbolical  meaning  of  bap- 
tism."—  Bib.  Hist.  Dogmat.  Expos.  Bap.,  p.  116. 

"  The  learned  rightly  admonish  us,"  says  Rosen- 
muller,  a  learned  Lutheran,  "that  on  account  of 
[the]  mystical  sense  of  baptism,  the  right  of  immer- 
sion ou°;ht  to  have  been  retained  in  the  Christian 
church."  "  And,"  says  Dr.  Bloomfield,  an  eminent 
Episcopalian,  "I  agree  with  Koppe  and  Eosen- 
muller  that  there  is  reason  to  regret  it  [immersion] 
should  have  been  abandoned  in  most  Christian 
churches." 

Hugo  Grotius,  LL.D.,  one  of  the  most  profound 
bcholars  of  the  seventeenth  century  says  :  "  But  that 


150  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

this  customary  rite  was  performed  by  immersion,  riot 
by  pouring,  is  indicated  both  by  the  proper  significa- 
tion of  the  word,  and  the  places  chosen  for  that  rite, 
John  iii.  23;  Acts  viii.  38  ;  and  many  allusions  of  the 
Apostles,  which  can  not  be  referred  to  sprinkling, 
Rom.  vi.  3-4;  Col.  ii.  12.  Considerably  later,  the 
custom  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  seems  to  have  come 
into  use,  for  the  sake  of  those  who,  lying  in  virulent 
disease,  sought  a  name  with  Christ,  whom  the  rest 
call  clinics." 

M.  If  that  is  the  fact,  we  condemn  ourselves: 
we  must  give  up  the  ground  to  the  Baptists.  If  our 
friends  have  given  evidence  against  us,  the  verdict 
must  be  rendered  according  to  the  testimony.  Are 
you  sure  that  toe  first  divided  the  church  on  the  mode  of 
baptism  ?  Must  there  not  be  some  mistake  about  it  ? 
How  can  we  be  so  blind  as  to  admit  that  we  have 
changed  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  then  contend 
for  the  inventions  of  men?  Why  should  we  con- 
demn others  for  adhering  to  the  divine  example? 
Who  had  the  right  to  set  aside  the  Saviour's  pre- 
cept, as  Dr.  Mosheim,  a  Lutheran,  calls  it? 

P.  No,  I  am  not  mistaken.  The  ordinance  of 
Christ  has  been  changed,  or  superseded,  and  new 
ones  introduced  into  the  church  by  the  authority  of 
men.  It  is  a  fact,  admitted  by  eminent  biblical 
scholars  and  ministers.  Pedobaptists  have  done  it. 
The  evidence  is  clear  and  conclusive.  Now,  as  we 
admit  that  we  have  changed  the  ordinance  of  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  we  must,  as  you  say,  give  up  the 


Tenth  Conversation.  151 

ground  to  the  Baptists ;  for  it  is  clearly  evident  that 
no  one  has  the  right  to  change  what  God  has 
ordained.  But  let  us  hear  the  witnesses,  who  are 
Catholics,  Episcopalians,  Lutherans,  Preshyterians, 
etc. 

The  Roman  Catholics  unblu shingly  declare  it. 
Here  is  a  note  found  in  a  Rhenish  Testament, 
published  in  1562,  on  Matt.  iii.  6  —  "baptized  in 
Jordan,"  etc.  "  The  word  baptism  signifies  a  wash- 
ing: particularly  when  it  is  done  by  immersion,  or 
by  dipping,  or  plunging  a  thing  under  water,  which 
was  formerly  the  ordinary  way  of  administering  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism. 

"  But  the  church,  which  can  not  change  the  least 
article  of  the  Christian  faith,  is  not  so  tied  up  to 
matters  of  discipline  and  ceremonies.  Not  only  the 
Catholic  church,  but  also  the  pretended  reformed 

CHURCHES    HAVE  ALTERED    THIS    PRIMITIVE    CUSTOM,  ill 

giving  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  They  now  allow 
of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  on  the  person 
baptized.  Nay,  many  of  their  ministers  do  it  now- 
a-days,  by  filipping  a  wet  finger  and  thumb  over  the 
child's  head,  or  by  shaking  a  wet  finger  or  two  over 
the  child,  which  it  is  hard  enough  to  call  baptism  in  any 
sense." 

"  The  Holy  Scriptures  speak  only  of  baptism  by 
immersion.  The  dogma  of  the  church  is  to  sprinkle, 
and  we  should  in  this,  as  in  eveiw  thing  else,  follow 
the  church." — Roman  Catholic  Catechism. 

Thus  the  Roman  Catholics  tell  us  that  the  primi- 


152  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

tive  baptism  was  immersion,  and  that  sprinkling  was 
substituted  by  them,  by  the  authority  their  church 
has  in  itself  to  change  the  ordinances  of  Christ. 
"  The  church  claims  the  right  to  regulate,  at  her 
just  discretion,  whatever  regards  the  manner  of 
administering  the  sacraments,"  says  Archbishop 
Kenrick. 

On  this  ground  they  have  taken  away  the  cup 
from  the  laity,  instituted  the  mass,  and  introduced 
the  dogmas  of  indulgences,  image  worship,  immac- 
ulate conception,  etc. 

The  first  law  authorizing  sprinkling  in  extreme 
cases  of  sickness,  was  made  by  a  Catholic  Pope, 
Stephen  II.,  753;  immersion,  with  these  exceptions, 
being  the  universal  practice.  The  reason  why  Pope 
Stephen  authorized  sprinkling  for  the  sick  was  the 
following:  The  doctrine  of  baptism  being  necessary 
to  salvation  prevailed  to  a  great  extent,  and  to  main- 
tain that  immersion  alone  was  baptism,  would  be 
the  eternal  loss  of  many  infants  and  others.  In  the 
eighth  century,  many  of  the  French  clergy,  finding 
it  impracticable  or  very  difficult  to  immerse,  began 
to  pour  and  sprinkle.  This  practice  not  having  the 
sanction  of  any  ecclesiastical  authority,  they  appealed 
to  the  Pope,  who  had  fled  to  France  to  claim  the 
protection  of  King  Pepin.  The  Lombards  had 
driven  him  from  Rome.  The  question  proposed  by 
the  clergy  to  the  Pope  was,  "  whether  it  is  lawful,  in 
case  of  necessity,  to  pour  water  with  a  ladle,  or  with 
the  hands,  upon  an  infant  lying    sick,  and  so  to 


Tenth  Conversation,  153 

baptize."  Stephen,  well  inclined  to  accommodate 
the  French  clergy,  by  the  promise  of  their  royal 
master  to  take  up  his  cause,  and  to  expel  the  Lom- 
bards from  his  dominions,  gave  such  a  reply  as  they 
desired :  "  This  baptism,  if  it  shall  have  been  per- 
formed in  the  name  of  the  sacred  Trinity,  shall 
remain  firmly ;  especially  when  necessity  also  demands 
that  he,  who  has  been  kept  back  by  sickness,  being 
in  the  manner  regenerated,  maybe  made  a  partaker 
of  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  This  is  accounted  the 
first  law  against  immersion"  says  Basnage.  "  The 
pontiff',  however,  did  not  dispense  with  immersion, 
except  in  case  of  extreme  necessity."  Pope  Stephen's 
answer  is  the  first  public  authority  for  private 
baptism  and  for  sprinkling. 

M.  From  this  testimony,  pouring  and  sprinkling 
are  the  children  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

P.  Yes,  and  only  come  by  adoption  into  the 
Protestant  churches. 

M.  It  appears  strange  to  me  why  the  French 
clergy  should  ask  for  the  opinion  of  the  Pope,  if 
pouring  and  sprinkling  were  apostolical  institutions, 
or  the  uniform  practice  of  the  church.  And  if  apos- 
tolical institutions,  why  should  the  Pope  only  author- 
ize the  practice  in  cases  of  necessity  f  ;  If  the  clergy 
were  right,  they  needed  no  authority  from  the  Pope 
to  ladle  the  children. 

P.  That  is  very  true ;  and  hence  the  evidence  is 
conclusively  against  us.  "  It  is  a  singular  fact,  that 
sprinkling  was  not  substituted  for  immersion,  either 
7* 


154  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

in  England  or  Scotland  (however  it  might  have  been 
resorted  to  in  eases  of  danger),  till  after  the  Refor- 
mation. Edward  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth  were 
both  immersed,  as  the  records  of  royalty  testify. 
The  successor  of  Elizabeth  (James  I.),  was  from 
Scotland,  and  had  been  initiated  into  sprinkling  by 
the  Scotch  divines,  who  had  imported  it  from  Geneva, 
and  he  favored  its  practice  in  England."  In  Scot- 
land, too,  says  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  a  learned 
work  of  undoubted  authority,  "  sprinkling  was  never 
used  in  ordinary  cases  till  after  the  Reformation.''9 
"During  the  persecution  of  Mary,  many  persons, 
most  of  whom  were  Scotsmen,  fled  from  England 
to  Geneva.  In  1856  a  book  of  the  '  Forms  of  Prayer 
and  Ministration  of  the  Sacraments,  approved  by 
the  famous  and  godly  learned  man,  John  Calvin/ 
was  published,  in  which  the  administrator  is  enjoined 
to  '  take  water  in  his  hand  and  lay  it  upon  his  fore- 
head.' These  Scottish  exiles,  who  had  renounced 
the  authority  of  the  Pope,  implicitly  acknowledged 
the  authority  of  Calvin;  and,  returning  to  their 
own  country,  with  Knox  at  their  head,  established 
sprinkling  in  Scotland."  Such,  also,  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Encyclopaedia  Americana,  and  other 
valuable  authorities. 

M.     Have  you  any  other  testimony  ? 

P.  Yes,  plenty  of  it.  The  following  eminent 
Pedobaptist  writers  admit  that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
have  been  substituted  for  immersion: 

Calvin,  on  Acts  viii.   38  —  " '  They  went  dowr. 


Tenth  Conversation.  155 

both  into  the  water.'  Here  we  see  the  rite  used 
among  men  in  olden  time  in  baptism;  for  the}^  put 
all  the  body  into  the  water:  now,  the  use  is  this  — 
the  minister  doth  only  sprinkle  the  body  or  the 
head.  *  *  *  It  is  certain  that  we  want  nothing 
that  makes  to  the  substance  of  baptism.  Where- 
fore the  church  did  grant  liberty  to  herself  since  the 
beginning  to  change  the  rite  somewhat." 

Dr.  George  C.  Knapp.  — "  It  would  have  been 
better  to  have  adhered  generally  to  the  ancient 
practice  (immersion),  as  even  Calvin  and  Luther 
allowed.'' 

Dr.  Storr. — "  The  change  of  the  ancient  custom 
of  immersion  ought  not  to  have  been  made." 

Dr.  Whitby,  a  learned  Episcopalian,  in  his  notes 
on  Rom.  vi.  4,  says :  "  It  being  so  expressl}-  declared 
here,  and  in  Col.  ii.  12,  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ 
in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water,  and  the  argu- 
ment to  oblige  us  to  conformity  to  his  death  by  dying 
to  sin,  being  taken  hence,  and  this  immersion  being 
religiously  observed  by  Christians  for  thirteen  centuries, 
and  approved  by  our  church,  and  the  change  of  it  into 
sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from  the 
author  of  the  institution  *  *  *  it  were  to  be 
wished  that  the  custom  might  be  again  in  general 
use." 

Bishop  Stillingfleet. — "  Rites  and  customs  apos- 
tolical are  altered,  as  dipping  in  baptism." 

Grotius. — "  The  ordinance  has  been  changed 
from  immersion  to  sprinkling." 


156  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Bishop  Smith. — "The  bowl  and  sprinkling  are 
strictly  Genevan  in  their  origin;  that  is,  they  were 
introduced  by  Calvin  at  Geneva." 

Deylingius,  a  Lutheran,  in  a  learned  work,  writ- 
ten about  1708,  say s  :  "  For  as  long  as  the  Apostles 
lived,  as  many  believe,  immersion  alone  was  in  use ; 
to  which  a  certain  affusion  was  afterwards  perhaps 
adjoined;  such  as  the  Greeks  are  at  this  day,  trine 
immersion  being  performed,  accustomed  to  use.  At 
length,  after  the  decease  of  the  Apostles,  the  bap- 
tism of  clinics  became  known,  when,  disease  and 
other  extreme  necessity  prohibiting  immersion, 
aspersion  and  affusion  began  to  be  introduced, 
which,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  were  retained,  immer- 
sion being  neglected.  For  in  a  later  age,  when 
adults  were  very  seldom  baptized,  infants  were  initi- 
ated into  the  sacred  rites  of  Christians  by  affusion 
and  aspersion." 

Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  speaking  of  the  Popish 
practice  of  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity,  says: 
"  I  think  they  are  as  well  warranted  to  make  this 
alteration  in  that  ordinance  as  we  are  to  substitute 
sprinkling  in  the  room  of  the  ancient  baptism." 

Gieseler,  Ch.  Hist.  Ger.  Eel.,  Yol.  III.,  p.  274,— 
"  For  the  sake  of  the  sick  the  rite  of  sprinkling  was 
introduced." 

Sir  John  Floyer. — "  The  church  of  Rome  hath 
drawn  short  compendiums  of  both  sacraments :  in 
the  eucharist  they  use  only  the  wafer,  and  instead 
of  immersion  they  introduced  aspersion."     In  King 


Tenth  Conversation.  157 

James'  days,  he  says :  "  The  people  grew  peevish 
with  all  ancient  ceremonies,  and,  through  the  love 
of  novelty,  and  the  niceness  of  parents,  and  the  pre- 
tence of  modesty,  they  laid  aside  immersion." 

Prof.  Stuart. — "  Aspersion  and  affusion  were 
gradually  introduced." 

Conybeare  and  Howson. — "  It  must  be  a  subject 
of  regret,  that  the  general  discontinuance  of  this 
original  form  of  baptism  [immersion]  (though  perhaps 
necessary  in  our  northern  climates),  has  rendered 
obscure  to  popular  apprehension  some  very  import 
ant  passages  of  Scripture." — Life  and  Epistles  oj 
St.  Paul,  Vol.  I.,  p.  439. 

"  The  form  of  baptism  at  first  was,  according  to 
most  historians,  by  immersion ;  but  as  Christianity 
advanced  into  colder  climates,  the  more  convenient 
mode  of  sprinkling  was  introduced." — New  Am. 
Cyclopaedia,  Vol.  II.,  p.  595,  article  Baptism. 

"  Baptism  was  originally  performed  by  immersion, 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  In  case  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite  to  the  sick,  sprinkling  was  sub- 
stituted for  immersion." — Guericke's  Church  History. 

"  The  chief  points  of  practice,"  says  Archbishop 
Ejenrick,  "  on  which  changes  have  taken  place  in 
the  course  of  ages,  are  the  manner  of  administering 
baptism  and  the  eucharist,  as  also  penitential  disci- 
pline. The  solemn  mode  of  baptism  was  originally 
by  immersion.  The  church  claims  the  right  to  regu- 
late, at  her  just  discretion,  whatever  regards  the 
manner  of  administering  the  sacraments." — Apple- 


158  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

torts  N.  A.  Cyclopoedia,  article  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
page  143. 

"  Though  baptism,  as  the  symbol  of  an  inward 
change,  was  conferred  at  first  only  upon  converts  to 
the  Christian  faith,  according  to  the  prevailing 
modern  opinion  of  biblical  critics,  yet  at  an  early 
period  the  practice  was  introduced  of  baptizing 
infants,  the  church  requiring  security,  through  cer- 
tain sponsors,  that  the  children  should  be  brought 
up  to  lead  a  godly  and  Christian  life." — Ibid,  p.  595. 

Coleman. — "After  the  lapse  of  several  centuries, 
this  form  of  baptism  [sprinkling]  gradually  took  the 
place  of  immersion." 

P.  Are  you  satisfied  with  the  proof?  It  is  all 
from  eminent  Pedobaptists.  If  not,  I  will  proceed 
and  give  you  more. 

M.  Yes;  it  is  clear,  from  the  authors  you  have 
quoted,  that  we  have  substituted  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling for  immersion.  I  wonder  what  our  Presbyterian 
friends  can  say  in  defence  of  Calvin? 

P.  I  do  not  know ;  but  there  is  one  thing  certain, 
as  Dr.  Wall,  an  Episcopalian,  and  others,  say  :  that 
the  first  "Forms  of  Prayer  and  Ministration  of  the 
Sacraments,"  wherein  the  administrator  is  enjoined 
to  "  take  water  in  his  hand  and  lay  it  upon  the  child's 
forehead"  was  published  by  the  Presbyterians,  and 
"  approved  by  that  godly  and  learned  man,  John 
Calvin." 

M.  From  the  quotations  you  have  given,  it  seems 
that,  next  to  the  Catholics,  the  Presbyterians  are 


Tenth  Conversation.  159 

chargeable  with  imposing  sprinkling  on  the  church. 

P.  Yes;  next  to  the  Catholics,  they  have  done 
more  to  cause  disturbance  in  the  church,  on  the 
subject  of  baptism,  than  any  other  Protestant  de- 
nomination. 

M.  But  what  reasons  do  the  Pedobaptists  assign 
for  the  change? 

P.  They  give  no  reasons  for  the  change,  but 
expediency,  indifferency,  non-essentialism,  and  de- 
cency !  As  if  the  Infinitely  Wise  God  would  ordain, 
practice,  and  command,  and  the  Apostles  practice 
and  command,  a  non-essential  and  indecent  ordi- 
nance for  his  church  ! 

M.  There  is  one  thing  about  which  I  should  like 
more  information.  I  see  it  stated  that  Cyprian  was 
the  first  to  defend  a  change  in  the  ordinance.  How 
is  it? 

P.  As  it  is  the  first  example  cited  by  Pedobap- 
tists that  sprinkling  was  practiced  in  the  primitive 
church,  I  will  give  you  a  literal  account  of  it,  as  well 
as  I  can.  In  the  third  century  there  was  a  sick  man, 
called  Novatian,  who,  not  being  able  to  leave  his 
couch,  and  thinking  himself  near  to  death,  wanted 
to  be  baptized.  The  question  arose,  whether  pour- 
ing would  not  answer;  and  by  some,  viewing  bap- 
tism a  saving  ordinance,  it  was  deemed  sufficient. 
So  water  was  poured  on  him  and  around  him  in  his 
bed,  to  make  it  as  near  a  case  of  immersion  as  could 
be  under  the  circumstances ;  which  ceremony  has 
been  called  clinic  baptism,  or  baptism  for  the  sick:   and 


160  Conversations  on  Baptism,. 

hence  those  who  were  afterwards  baptized  on  their 
beds  were  called  clinics,  and  half  Christians.  It  was 
never  called  baptism,  but  always  looked  upon  as  a 
substitute,  or  something  tbat  might  answer  under 
the  circumstances.  Novatian  himself  was  never 
looked  upon  as  baptized ;  for  when  afterwards  he 
endeavored  to  gain  a  higher  position  in  the  church, 
he  was  objected  to  as  not  being  baptized. 

M.  Do  you  say  that  this  is  the  first  example 
quoted  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and  pouring? 

P.  It  is.  No  other  has  been  produced.  It  is  the 
first  case  we  can  find  in  all  church  history  which  we 
cite  as  an  example.  It  was  a  perversion  of  the 
divine  command  and  example  of  baptism ;  and  was 
only  allowed  through  the  erroneous  idea  of  its 
friends,  that  baptism  was  a  saving  ordinance ;  that 
Novatian,  to  be  saved,  must  be  baptized;  and  that 
as  it  was  impossible  to  immerse  him,  therefore  he 
must  have  the  water  poured  on  him.  Thus,  you 
see,  that  the  change  of  the  ordinance  was  invented 
by  human  expediency  as  a  means  of  salvation.  What 
do  you  think  of  that  ? 

M.     I  am  surprised,  nay,  confounded. 

P.  It  is  enough  to  confound  any  sensible  man, 
and  to  make  the  friends  of  sprinkling  blush.  But 
to  proceed :  this  case  of  Novatian  caused  a  violent 
controversy  and  disruption  in  the  church. 

M.  Stop,  brother  E.,  I  must  interrupt  you  here. 
You  say  that  the  case  of  Novatian  caused  a  bitter 
controversy  in  the  church.     How  could  that  be,  if 


Tenth  Conversation,  161 

pouring  and  sprinkling  had  been  the  practice  of  the 
church  ?  Why  oppose  the  pouring  of  Novatian,  if 
affusion  had  been  in  use  before  ?  Truly  it  must  have 
been  a  strange  and  unknown  thing,  or  they  would 
not  have  opposed  it.  As  it  was  the  mode  that  caused 
the  opposition,  the  mode  of  Novatian's  baptism  must 
have  been  an  imposition  on  the  church. 

P.  It  certainly  was.  And  if  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling were  of  apostolic  origin,  why  confine  them  to 
the  sick?  Why  not  likewise  baptize  those  in  health? 
But  let  us  return  to  Cyprian.  During  the  contro- 
versy, Magnus  appealed  to  Cyprian,  an  African 
bishop,  for  his  opinion.     Here  is  Cyprian's  reply: 

"You  ask,  dear  son,  what  I  think  of  those  who 
in  sickness  receive  the  sacred  ordinance  (baptism), 
whether,  since  the}'  are  not  washed  in  the  saving 
water,  but  have  it  poured  on  them,  they  are  to  be 
esteemed  right  Christians?  In  the  saving  sacra- 
ments, when  necessity  obliges,  and  God  grants  his 
indulgence,  abridgment  of  divine  things  will  confer 
the  whole  on  believers." 

M.  For  my  part  I  can  not  see  any  authority  in 
that  for  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Cyprian  acknow- 
ledges immersion  to  be  the  practice  of  the  church, 
and  tells  us  "when  necessity  obliges,  and  God  grants 
his  indulgence,  abridgment  of  divine  things"  may  be 
made. 

P.  Yes  :  and  from  this  we  see,  that  both  pouring 
and  sprinkling  are  abridgment  of  divine  things,  if 


1 62  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

you  can  call  two  things  an  abridgment  of  a  third, 
which  has  no  resemblance  at  all  to  the  other  two. 

M.  I  agree  with  you  about  the  abridgment. 
Why,  I  see  no  resemblance  at  all  between  immer- 
sion and  sprinkling,  or  immersion  and  pouring. 
And  I  should  like  to  know  when  God  ever  gave 
authority  to  any  one  to  abridge  divine  things — to 
change  his  ordinances. 

P.     He  never  did. 

3L  It  seems  to  me,  if  I  had  no  better  proof  than 
that  for  sprinkling,  I  should  be  ashamed  to  own  it. 
If  Novatian  was  poured,  why  don't  they  pour  water 
for  baptism  now?  If  it  was  for  a  sick  man  then, 
why  don't  they  confine  it  to  the  sick  now  ?  If  it 
was  a  means  of  salvation  then,  why  not  a  means  of 
salvation  now?  If  the  example  is  worth  any  thing, 
it  must  certainly  be  worth  following!  The  next  I 
see  sprinkled,  I  shall  be  very  likely  to  think  of  the 
sick  man,  and  ask  myself  if  they  are  not  sick,  too! 
Why  sprinkling,  according  to  our  own  authors,  is 
nothing  but  an  innovation  on  an  innovation  —  a  substi- 
tute for  a  substitute  ! 

P.  Just  so.  Thus  the  first  instance  on  record, 
where  the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  changed,  is 
that  of  a  sick  man  in  the  third  century,  who,  not 
being  able  to  be  baptized,  had  water  poured  on  him 
and  around  him  on  his  bed  as  a  means  of  salvation. 
The  first  law  authorizing  pouring  and  sprinkling, 
but  only  in  extreme  cases  of  sickness,  was  made  by 
h  Catholic   Pope,   Stephen  II.,  754.     In   1311  the 


Tenth  Conversation.  163 

legislature,  in  a  council  held  at  Ravenna,  called  by 
the  Pope,  declared  immersion  to  be  immaterial. 
Then  sprinkling  was  introduced  into  Scotland  and 
England  by  Presbyterians  from  Geneva.  The  first 
formula  acknowledging  sprinkling  was  published 
by  the  authority  of  John  Calvin,  in  1556.  Then,  in 
1643,  the  Presbyterian  Assembly  of  England,  by  a 
vote  of  twenty-five  to  twenty- four,  voted  that 
sprinkling  should  be  the  uniform  practice. 

M.  Why  all  these  human  appliances  to  foist 
sprinkling  upon  the  people  if  it  was  a  divine  insti- 
tution, commanded  by  Christ,  practiced  by  the 
Apostles  and  the  primitive  church,  and  taught  in 
God's  Word?  What  man  in  his  senses  would 
require  the  sanction  of  popes  and  councils  for 
sprinkling  in  preference  to  immersion,  if  sprinkling 
was  the  divine  mode  of  baptism  ? 

P.  Very  true.  And  if  there  was  no  difference 
between  immersion,  pouring  and  sprinkling  —  if 
all  these  modes  were  in  use  then — why  should  there 
be  so  much  opposition  to  Novatian's  baptism  ?  The 
fact  is,  it  was  looked  upon  as  a  substitute  for  Chris- 
tian baptism.  This  was  the  reason ;  and  that  inter- 
ference with  divine  things  was  the  curse  of  the 
church.  And  so  it  will  ever  be.  As  the  introduc- 
tion of  error  produced  strife  and  animosities  in  the 
church  at  that  time,  so  has  sprinkling  ever  since 
been  a  source  of  contention  and  blight,  and  has  had 
to  be  sustained  by  popes,  councils,  and  kings.  Its 
history  is  traced  in  angry  disputations  for  its  defence, 


164  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

fines,  imprisonments,  confiscations  and  blood.  It 
has  a  fearful  record  of  outrage  standing  against  it. 

In  conclusion  of  our  evening's  investigations,  let 
me  now  sum  up  the  result. 

M.     Do  so,  if  you  please. 

P.  From  the  incontrovertible  proof  adduced  it  is 
admitted  by  our  friends  themselves  : 

1.  That  immersion  was  the  exclusive  practice  of 
the  church  for  at  least  two  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
and  the  general  practice  for  thirteen  centuries. 
They  claim  no  exception  but  for  the  sick  (clinics), 
which  was  regarded  and  admitted  to  be  an  innova- 
tion  or  substitute  for  the  divine  institution,  and 
devised  as  a  means  of  salvation. 

2.  That  pouring  and  sprinkling  have  been  sub- 
stituted for  the  ancient  baptism,  and  that  we  have 
made  the  change  —  1st,  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
a  saving  ordinance ;  2nd,  on  the  assumed  right  to 
change  Christ's  ordinances,  and  introduce  new  ones 
into  the  church ;  and  3rd,  on  the  ground  of  expedi- 
ency, delicacy,  modesty,  and  as  Dr.  Chalmers,  a 
Presb}'terian,  calls  it,  a  point  of  indifferency. 

3.  That  sprinkling  did  not  come  into  general  use 
until  many  centuries  after  the  Apostles'  times,  and 
then  had  to  be  sanctioned  by  a  Catholic  Pope,  thus 
having  a  Popish  origin. 

Thus  we  condemn  ourselves,  and  show  conclu- 
sively that  pouring  and  sprinkling  are  the  inven- 
tions of  men,  and  not  baptism ;  and  that  we  have 
assumed   the  right   to  change   Christ's   ordinance. 


Tenth  Conversation,  165 

We  acknowledge  it.  To  us  attaches  the  guilt  —  on  us 
rests  the  fearful  responsibility.  Try  as  much  as  we 
may  to  shift  the  responsibility  on  others,  the  blame 
must  ever  rest  upon  us.  And  to  us,  also,  is  charge- 
able all  the  strife,  bitterness,  dissensions  and  persecu- 
tions that  have  taken  place  in  the  world  on  account 
thereof.  Pedobaptists,  I  repeat,  are  the. first  disturb- 
ers of  the  harmony  of  the  church  on  the  mode  of  baptism. 
And  I  have  been  surprised  that  the  Baptists  do  not 
charge  home  upon  us  more  earnestly  this  fact  —  that 
they  do  not  hold  up  the  Pedobaptists  as  the  first  disturb- 
ers of  the  harmony  of  the  Church  of  Christ  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Baptism.  Let  them  show  where  the  respon- 
sibility rests,  and  prove  to  the  world,  as  they  can 
beyond  all  successful  contradiction,  that  while  they 
are  contending  for  obedience  to  the  command  and 
example  of  Christ,  and  to  apostolic  example  and 
teaching,  we  are  advocating  and  practicing  the 
inventions  of  men. 

M.  So  they  ought,  in  justice  to  the  truth  and 
themselves.  As  the  case  now  stands,  we  charge 
them  as  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the  church,  by 
advocating  what  we  are  pleased  to  call  their  pecu- 
liar views  on  baptism. 

P.     Yes,  and  unjustly.     For  Pedobaptists  admit 

THAT  THEY  HAVE  SUBSTITUTED  SPRINKLING  AND  POUR- 
ING FOR  IMMERSION. 


Eleventh    Conversation 


On  the  Right  of  Changing  the  Ordinances,  or  introducing  New 
ones  into  the  Church. 


RESBYTERIAK  In  connection  with  our 
last  evening's  subject,  let  me  ask  you, 
brother  C,  had  the  Pedobaptists  the  right 
to  put  in  the  plea  of  "expediency"  or 
"  indifferencj  "  as  a  warrant  for  changing  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  or  rather,  for  introducing  new 
ordinances  into  the  church? 

Methodist.  Certainly  not.  That  is  self-evident. 
"No  one  has  the  right  to  change  the  Saviour's  com- 
mandments.  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  command- 
ments." 

P.  This  is  the  test  of  our  love  to  Jesus  —  obedi- 
ence to  his  commandments.  These  commandments 
are  an  outflowing  of  eternal  wisdom,  goodness,  and 
justice.  True  obedience  springs  out  of  love  for 
Jesus.  Not  simply  because  they  are  commandments, 
but  because  they  are  the  commandments  of  Jesus, 


Eleventh  Conversation,  167 

the  just  and  holy  One.  In  obedience,  there  isloj-alty; 
in  disobedience,  there  is  rebellion.  "  Lord,  I  will 
follow  thee  now,"  says  true  love  for  Jesus;  but 
accommodation  says,  "  let  me  first  bury  my  dead." 
"Lord,  I  will  obey  and  follow  thee  whithersoever 
thou  hast  commanded,"  says  iove ;  but,  says  rebel- 
lion, "  I  will  follow  thee  wherever  and  however  it  is 
convenient." 

If  we  have  the  right  to  pour  or  sprinkle  for  bap- 
tism, we  have  the  right  to  do  any  thing  else  that  we 
may  fancy  to  call  baptism.  "  It  is  not,"  says  a 
writer,  in  defence  of  the  Baptists,  "  that  we  ascribe 
any  mysterious  efficacy  to  baptism ;  it  is  not  with 
the  spirit  of  a  Pharisee  we  cling  to  its  outward  form; 
nor  yet  that  we  rely  unduly  on  its  spiritual  meaning: 
but  it  is,  that  the  right  to  alter  this  ordinance  in- 
volves the  right  to  make  other  and  momentous 
changes.  Said  Algernon  Sydney,  in  the  prison, 
the  night  before  his  execution  :  '  Nephew,  I  value 
not  mine  own  life  a  chip;  but  what  concerns  me  is, 
that  the  law  which  takes  my  life  may  hang  every 
one  of  you,  whenever  it  is  thought  convenient.'  It 
was  a  noble  utterance,  and  embodies  the  substance 
of  our  honest  opposition  to  the  claim  Pedobaptists 
urge."  If  we  presume  to  open  the  door  of  human 
expediency,  we  shall  let  into  the  church  a  flood  of 
error  that  will  eventually  prove  its  destruction.  Is 
it  any  wonder  that  so  many  of  the  Congregational- 
ists  of  New  England,  after  denying  the  law  of  Jesus 
on  baptism,  should  now  deny  his  Divinity,  and  go 


1 68  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

over  to  TTnitarianism  ?  Why  should  we  condemn 
the  Roman  Catholics  for  withholding  the  cup  from 
the  laity,  etc.  ?  They  do  it  on  the  same  principle 
that  governs  all  Pedohaptist  churches  in  substituting 
sprinkling  for  baptism.  And  when  we  charge  them 
with  making  void  the  laws  of  Christ  by  their  tradi- 
tions and  assumed  rights,  they  retort,  and  charge  us 
with  doing  the  same  thing  in  sprinkling. 

The  Roman  Catholics  tell  us  frankly  that  immer- 
sion was  the  primitive  baptism,  but  that  they  have 
changed  it  b}7  the  right  inherent  in  their  church. 
"But  what  authority  have  you  to  change  the  ordi- 
nance?" say  they  to  the  Protestants,  "  when  you 
acknowledge  no  such  right.  You  say  that  the  Bible 
alone  is  your  rule  :  why  do  you  not  abide  by  what 
it  teaches,  and  not  change  the  ordinances  according 
to  your  views  of  expediency?  You  condemn  in  us 
what  you  claim  as  right  for  yourselves.  Why,  your 
own  great  scholar,  Dr.  Johnson,  has  the  justice  to 
say  that  we  are  as  well  warranted  in  withholding  the 
cup  from  the  laity  as  you  are  in  substituting  sprink- 
ling in  the  room  of  the  ancient  baptism." 

M.  The  Roman  Catholic  has  the  advantage.  But 
he  is  wrong  in  his  assumption  of  right.  If  the 
church  has  the  right  to  change  such  a  solemn  ordi- 
nance as  baptism — to  violate  Christ's  example  and 
commandment,  and  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and 
primitive  church  —  what  has  she  not  the  right  to 
do?  Of  what  force  are  any  of  the  commandments 
of  Christ?     Where  is  to  end  this  fearful  responsi- 


Eleventh  Conversation,  169 

bility  which  the  church  assumes?  But,  thank  God! 
no  church  has  any  such  right.  "  Christ  has  given 
to  his  churches  no  dispensing  power  to  set  aside  his 
laws;  no  legislative  power  to  make  new  ones;  but 
has  enjoined  on  them  to  observe  all  things  wltatsoever 
he  has  commanded." — (Matt,  xxviii.  20.) 

P.  Let  us  wash  our  hands  of  all  participation  in 
every  such  assumption  of  power.  As  the  Pedobap- 
tists  have  taken  the  responsibility  of  substituting  the 
ordinances  of  men  for  those  of  Christ,  let  them  bear 
the  fearful  guilt  alone.  They  have  no  right  to  com 
demn  those  who  are  contending  for  the  primitive 
baptism  ;  for  they  are  only  unfurling  before  the  peo- 
ple the  flag  which  we  have  so  ingloriously  trampled 
upon,  and  contending  for  principles  in  which  the 
purity,  safety,  and  perpetuity  of  the  church  is  alone 
to  be  found. 

31.  If  I  remember  correctly,  Mr.  Beecher  has 
affirmed  that  the  church  has  the  right  to  make  such 
ordinances  as  it  may  think  best  for  its  advantage. 
If  so,  of  what  use  is  the  TTord  of  God? 

P.  Mr.  Beecher's  position  will  be  best  under- 
stood from  his  own  words.  He  says,  in  a  sermon 
preached  in  Brooklyn,  X.  Y.,  May,  1864:  u  Show 
me  a  thing  that  experience  shows  to  be  good,  and  1 
fall  back  on  the  liberty  which  is  vouchsafed  to  every 
Christian,  and  which  is  set  forth  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment, and  say,  by  this  liberty  I  do  it.  There  is  my 
warrant  and  authority.  And  if  experience  shows  a 
certain  ordinance  to  be  good,  it  is  your  right  to 

8 


170  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

adopt  that,  whether  Scripture  points  it  out  or  not. 
It  is  your  privilege  to  do  so,  because  you  are  Chris- 
tians, and  are  free,  being  bound  to  no  ceremonies 
and  usages." 

On  this  ground  alone  Mr.  Beecher  justifies  infant 
sprinkling.  Here  you  will  perceive  that  the  right 
to  adopt  new  ordinances  is  based  on  the  wisdom  and 
experience  of  men,  independent  of  the  authority  of 
the  Bible.  Let  us  look  at  the  assumption.  Sectarian 
wisdom  invents  "  things  "  and  "  ordinances  "  for  the 
church,  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  designs  of 
men,  and  of  course  proves  them  to  be  "good,"  and 
successful  for  that  purpose;  and  then  they  turn  upon 
us  triumphantly,  and  say:  "Show  me  a  thing"  or 
"  ordinance  to  be  good,  whether  Scripture  points  it 
out  or  not,  and  I  fall  back  on  the  liberty  vouchsafed 
to  every  Christian,  and  which  is  set  forth  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  say  by  this  liberty  I  do  it,  being 
bound  to  no  ceremonies  or  usages." 

M.  This  is  certainly  the  strangest  of  all  strange 
ideas,  emanating  as  it  does  from  Mr.  Beecher.  It 
is  nothing  but  a  revival  of  the  old  Catholic  doctrine, 
that  the  end  justifies  the  means.  I  am  very  thankful 
that  our  preachers  do  not  defend  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism  with  any  such  arguments. 

P.  Now,  if  these  "things"  and  "ordinances" 
are  wrong,  clearly  opposed  to  the  commands  of 
Christ,  who  has  the  right  to  adopt  them  ?  How  can 
the  wisdom  and  experience  of  men  make  that  right 
which  is  wrong  ?     A  "  thing  "  and  "  ordinance  "  may 


Eleventh  Conversation,  171 

be  "  good  "  in  the  estimation  and  experience  of  an 
individual  and  sect,  and  perfect  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  end  proposed,  but  opposed  and  repug- 
nant to  every  sense  of  right  as  revealed  in  the  Bible. 
Mohammedan  and  Catholic  theories  and  ordinances 
are  "good"  in  the  wisdom  and  experience  of  a 
Moslem  and  Catholic,  but  they  are  not  right ;  and  no 
amount  of  experience  can  make  them  right  Both  the 
wisdom  that  invented  and  the  practice  that  proves 
them  good,  are  scripturally  and  fundamentally  wrong. 

M.  But  you  can  not  suppose  Mr.  Beecher  to 
believe  the  baptism  of  infants  to  be  opposed  and 
repugnant  to  scriptural  teaching. 

P.  Of  course  not.  But  while  he  concedes  and 
admits  that  infant  baptism  is  no  where  commanded 
in  the  Scriptures,  he  yet  justifies  it  on  the  ground 
of  experience,  and  the  right  of  introducing  new 
"  things  "  and  "  ordinances  "  into  the  church,  because, 
forsooth,  some  people  may  think  they  have  been  or 
maybe  productive  of  "good."  Such  assumptions 
evidently  teach  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  did  not 
give  the  world  all  that  was  requisite  for  doctrine  and 
practice  in  the  church ;  that,  for  its  perfection  in 
these,  the  theories  and  contrivances  of  men  are 
essentially  necessary;  or,  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
gave  the  church  partially  and  imperfectly  developed 
doctrines  and  ordinances,  suitable  only  for  the  exi- 
gencies of  that  period,  and  then  left  to  human  wis- 
dom and  ingenuity  to  change,  modify,  and  perfect, 
in  succeeding  ages,  that  which  they  had  thus  left 
unfinished. 


172  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

M.  Yes,  and  nicely  finished  they  would  be,  if 
left  to  the  wisdom  of  men  to  complete  ! 

P.  But  Mr.  Beecher's  whole  argument  is  an 
unjustifiable  assumption  of  right.  He  says  that 
these  "  things  "  are  done  "  by  the  liberty  which  is 
vouchsafed  to  every  Christian,  and  which  is  set  forth 
in  the  New  Testament."  If  that  is  the  case,  then 
the  whole  thing  topples  over,  for  the  New  Testament 
grants  no  liberty  to  make  new  doctrines  or  ordinan- 
ces for  the  church,  and  to  continue  in  their  advocacy 
and  use,  because  the  wisdom  and  experience  of  error- 
ists  prove  them  to  be  "  good."  If  such  a  right  was 
ever  conferred,  I  should  like  to  know  where  to  find 
it.  The  New  Testament  unequivocally  condemns 
such  practices.  Here  is  what  it  says  :  "Whatsoever 
thing  I  command  you,  observe  to  do  it:  thou  shalt 
not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it." — Deut.  xii. 
32.  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one  of 
these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so, 
he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven :  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the 
same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
— Matt.  v.  19.  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  command- 
ments."— John  xiv.  15.  "  If  any  man  shall  take 
away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy, 
God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of 
life,"  etc. — Rev.  xxii.  19.  Again  :  it  is  entirely  at 
variance  with  the  practice  of  the  Apostle.  He  says  : 
"  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember  me 
in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered.  Own 


Eleventh  Conversation.  173 

to  you."— 1  Cor.  xi.  2.  "  But  God  be  thanked,  that 
ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  but  have  obeyed  from 
the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine  which  was  delivered  you ." 
—  Rom.  vi.  17.  "For  this  cause  I  have  sent  unto 
you  Timotheus,  *  *  who  shall  bring  you  into 
remembrance  of  my  ways,  which  be  in  Christ,  as  I 
teach  every  where  in  every  church" — 1  Cor.  iv.  17. 

31.  It  is  certainly  a  fearful  thing  to  interfere  with 
God's  Word.  And  how  any  one  can  doubt  the  uni- 
formity of  practice  by  the  Apostle,  after  reading 
these  passages,  is  beyond  my  comprehension. 

P.  The  assumptions  of  Mr.  Beecher  are  the 
teachings  of  Antichrist.  If  1  did  not  know  to  the 
contrary,  I  should  take  him  to  be  a  Roman  Catholic ; 
for  by  the  same  kind  of  reasoning  the  Catholic  jus- 
titles  all  the  errors  of  his  church.  ]STay,  he  is  far 
more  consistent,  for  to  all  that  Mr.  Beecher  has  said, 
he  might  reply  as  follows : 

"  The  right  to  introduce  new  ordinances  into  the 
church,  or  to  change  Christ's  ordinances,  is  clearly 
evident;  and  the  only  difference  between  us,  Mr. 
Beecher,  is,  that  while  you  say  the  liberty  to  intro- 
duce new  'things  and  ordinances  is  vouchsafed  to 
every  Christian,'  we  maintain  that  that  right  belongs 
only  to  the  Church.  The  church  is  '  bound  by  no 
ceremonies  or  usages.'  'Experience'  teaches  us  that 
image  worship  is  'good'  —  we  are  image  worshipers. 
It  is  our  right.  We  fall  back  on  the  '  liberty  vouch- 
safed' to  the  church,  and  have  instituted  image 
worship.     *  Experience  '  has  taught  us  that  transub- 


174  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

stantiation,  indulgences,  and  infant  sprinkling  are 
'good,'  and  by  the  right  given  the  church,  we  say, 
i  by  this  liberty' we  command  and  practice  them. 
You  admit  the  right  of  introducing  new  ordinances, 
but  that  right  belongs  to  and  is  inherent  in  us. 
Christ  gave  it  to  his  church  —  we  are  the  church. 
And  we  have  the  right  to  do  whatever  the  church 
thinks  will  promote  her  interests.  We  have  done 
so.  We  have  introduced  other  things  and  made 
other  changes  in  the  church  on  precisely  the  same 
ground,  and  our  experience  has  proved  them  to  be  '  good.' 
Why  condemn  us  ?  We  are  carrying  out  to  its  full 
and  legitimate  extent  the  principle  for  which  }7ou 
contend,  and  that  governs  you  in  sprinkling  children, 
aud  what  you  now  declare  is  your  only  authority 
for  sprinkling  infants." 

M.  I  wonder  how  Mr.  Beecher's  friends  like  his 
admissions  ?  He  gives  up  the  whole  foundation  for 
infant  baptism. 

P.  He  can  not  help  it.  And  so  the  Catholic 
continues  :  "  I  will  condemn  you  by  your  own  wit- 
ness, Mr.  Beecher.  You  say  that  the  Bible  is  the 
Protestant's  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  That 
clearly  teaches  immersion  —  there  is  no  sprinkling 
in  it.  We  admit  it,  and  that  immersion  was  the 
exclusive  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  At  one 
time  it  was  our  universal  custom.  We  introduced 
sprinkling,  and  only  contend  for  it  on  the  right  of 
the  church  to  change  the  ordinances,  and  on  the 
ground  of  expediency,  '  being  bound  by  no  ceremo- 


Eleventh  Conversation.  175 

nies  and  usages  established  in  the  New  Testament.'  " 

31.  I  was  not  aware  that  this  was  the  ground 
occupied  by  the  Roman  Catholics  in  relation  to  the 
rite  of  baptism. 

P.  It  is;  and  I  have  not  added  one  iota  to  their 
arguments.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  could  continue 
further : 

"  Mr.  Beecher,  you  violate  your  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice  —  the  clear,  express  letter  of  your  own 
constitution  of  right  —  your  Protestant  Bible. 
You  say,  again :  '  I  concede,  and  I  assert,  first, 
that  infant  baptism  is  no  where  commanded  in  the 
New  Testament :  no  man  can  find  a  passage  that 
commands  it.'  And  yet  3-ou  advocate  and  practice 
it,  and  some  of  vour  churches  command  it.  Thus 
you  introduce  a  new  ordinance  into  your  church, 
and  contend  for  it  only  on  the  ground  that  '  expe- 
rience '  has  proved  it  good,  and  talk  loudly  of  liberty, 
and  expediency,  and  right,  i  being  bound  to  no 
ceremonies  or  usages,'  and  yet  you  condemn  us  for 
the  same  tiling.  Pray  what  kind  of  a  standard  of 
right  is  your  Bible  ?  Where  can  you  find  in  it  your 
liberty  to  introduce  new  ordinances  into  the  church? 
God  has  given  you  no  such  right,  and  where  there 
is  no  right  conferred  there  can  be  no  ground  of 
expediency  assumed.  Mr.  Beecher,  you  ought  to  be 
a  Catholic." 

If.  This  reminds  me  of  what  I  once  heard  a 
Baptist  minister  say.  He  was  riding  one  day  in  the 
stage  with  a  Catholic  priest,  who,  upon  learning  that 


176  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

he  was  a  Baptist,  exclaimed,  holding  up  his  hands 
in  holy  horror  :  "  My  God  !  a  Baptist !  Why  you 
hold  nothing  in  common  with  the  mother  church. 
All  other  denominations  have  only  our  authority 
for  much  of  their  faith  and  practice;  but  you  are 
entirely  out  of  the  pale  of  the  church."  "  Thank 
God  for  that !"  replied  the  Baptist. 

P.  Thus,  you  see,  on  one  point  both  Mr.  Beecher 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  agree;  -while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Catholic  has  a  decided  advantage.  But 
both  advocate  the  doctrine  of  Antichrist,  set  aside 
the  authority  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  and  the 
Bible,  and  for  the  "  doctrines  of  Christ  teach  the 
traditions  of  men." 

But  Mr.  Beecher's  position  is  totally  unfounded, 
from  another  point  of  view.  If  infant  sprinkling 
is  to  be  judged  by  his  own  standard,  it  must  be 
condemned.  A  few  churches  may  say  that  it  is 
*  good/  but  the  experience  of  the  world  proves  it  to 
be  a  great  and  ruinous  evil.* 

M.  Why,  any  body  of  common  understanding 
can  see  the  fallacy  of  such  reasoning  as  Mr.  Beech- 
er's. He  says,  "  we  are  bound  to  no  ceremonies  or 
usages."  The  Bible  says  we  are.  Are  not  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism  ceremonies  and  usages  ? 
To  these  the  Saviour  has  bound  us  by  positive 
commands.  Who  gave  any  one  the  right  to  change 
or  refuse  obedience  to  what  he  has  ordained  and 
commanded  ?     He  certainly  knew  what  was  better 

*  See     Ninth     Conversation. 


Eleventh  Conversation.  177 

for  his  church  than  our  modern  teachers,  however 
wise  the}r  may  be.  And  where  is  to  be  the  end? 
If  we  have  the  right  to  introduce  new  things  and 
ordinances  into  the  church,  and  to  substitute  our 
inventions  for  Christ's  ordinances,  and  thus  allow 
the  fanciful  speculations  and  innovations  of  men  to 
take  the  place  of  the  clearly  expressed  will  of  Christ, 
of  what  use  is  the  Bible  ?  It  does  appear  to  me  that 
some  men  have  a  continual  itching  to  improve  on 
the  infinite  wisdom  of  Christ;  as  if  he  had  estab- 
lished laws  and  institutions  for  the  government  of 
his  church  to-day,  not  knowing  whether  they  would 
be  applicable  for  it  to-morrow. 

P.  And  yet  that  is  the  very  position  assumed  by 
many  of  your  ministers.  They  contend  that  the 
church  was  left  in  an  unfinished  state,  adapted  only 
for  that  particular  period,  leaving  it  for  us  to  adopt 
at  our  pleasure,  as  the  exigencies  require,  and  the 
progressive  state  of  society  demands,  just  such 
improvements  as  we  think  necessary  or  expedient 
for  the  times. 

M.  It  can't  be  possible  that  some  of  our  minis- 
ters have  got  so  far  along  towards  Rome !  I  sup- 
pose they  take  the  ground  that  our  church  is  an 
improvement  on  the  apostolic  plan.  It  is  strange, 
certainly. 

P.  Your  Discipline  says:  "It  is  not  necessary 
that  rites  and  ceremonies  should  in  all  places  be  the 
same,  or  exactly  alike ;  for  they  have  been  always 
different,  and    may  be  changed   according  to  the 


178  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

diversity  of  countries,  times,  and  men's  manners,  so 
that  nothing  be  ordained  against  God's  Word.  * 
*  *  Every  particular  church  may  ordain,  change, 
or  abolish  rites  and  ceremonies,  so  that  all  things 
may  be  done  to  edification." — P.  25. 

M.  Well,  we  can't  blame  our  preachers  Tor 
sticking  to  the  Discipline. 

P.  Of  course  not.  All  that  I  ask  of  your 
preachers  is,  that  they  will  faithfully  carry  out  the 
requirements  of  your  Discipline,  in  every  place,  and 
at  all  times. 

The  attempt  to  improve  on  the  laws  of  Christ  has 
been  the  cause  of  endless  mischief  to  the  church. 
When  we  begin  to  theorize,  innovate,  and  improve 
on  God's  plans,  and  take  things  for  granted,  simply 
because  we  desire  them  to  be  so,  bending  the  Scrip- 
tures to  our  own  vain  notions,  we  set  up  our  wisdom 
in  opposition  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  arraign  the 
Bible  before  the  tribunal  of  human  intelligence,  and 
appeal  to  the  prejudices  of  carnal  minds  for  their 
justification. 

M.  The  best,  safest,  and  wisest  way  for  us  all  is 
to  keep  as  near  as  we  possibly  know  how  to  the 
simple,  literal  doctrines  and  usages  taught  in  the 
Scriptures.  We  ought  to  guard  against  the  least 
innovation. 

P.  Yes,  so  wisdom  teaches.  The  exhortation 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  Colossians  applies  with 
equal  force  to  us :  "  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you 
through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradi- 


Eleventh  Conversation.  179 

tion  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and 
not  after  Christ." — Col.  ii.  8.  The  rebuke  of  Jesus 
is  very  applicable  to  our  liberal  Christians:  "Thus 
have  ye  made  the  commandment  of  God  of  none 
effect  by  your  tradition." — Matt.  xv.  6.  The  intro- 
duction of  error  is  like  making  a  small  outlet  for 
the  water  in  an  embankment  of  a  river.  The 
continued  action  of  the  current  wears  the  opening 
wider,  and  wider,  until  at  length  the  obstruction 
gives  way,  and  the  angry  waters  sweep  over  the 
country,  producing  devastation,  sickness,  and  death. 
The  assumption  of  power  by  the  priesthood,  the 
introduction  of  long,  mystifying  articles  of  faith  in 
the  churches,  the  use  of  obscure  theological  terms, 
that  require  almost  a  life  time  to  understand,  and 
the  invention  and  use  of  complicated  church  ma- 
chinery for  the  purpose  of  grinding  the  people  — 
have  ever  been  a  source  of  contention  and  strife,  and 
the  blight  and  curse  of  the  church. 

When  the  church  was  first  established,  it  was 
pure,  simple,  and  uniform  in  its  doctrines  and  prac- 
tice; for  the  Apostles  taught  "  the  same  things 
every  where  in  every  church"  —  "one  Lord,  one 
faith,  and  one  baptism."  Then  did  the  people  keep 
from  the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine  and  ordinances 
as  delivered  unto  them.  But  soon,  too  soon,  alas"! 
glided  the  serpent  into  the  Christian  Eden,  and  hid 
among  the  flowers,  breathing  poison,  and  causing 
blight  and  desolation.  Then  began  men  to  teach 
traditions  for  the  commandments  of  God,  and  to 


180  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

claim  authority  to  rule  in  the  church.  Then  came 
the  union  of  Church  and  State  —  theu  came  the 
struggle  for  supremacy  between  the  bishops  of 
Carthage  and  Rome  —  then  came  the  man  of  sin, 
claiming  to  have  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell,  to  be 
God's  vicegerent  on  earth,  with  his  blasphemous 
title  of  "  our  Lord  God  the  Pope,"  and  with  bloody 
persecutions  for  those  who  would  not  hold  him  as 
supreme  head  of  the  church,  with  his  legates,  cardi- 
nals, archbishops,  bishops,  and  an  almost  endless 
list  of  conjured  officers  and  titles,  and  conspicuous 
in  whose  train  were  imposture,  traditions,  dogmati- 
cal assumptions,  among  which  may  be  mentioned 
purgatory,  the  mass,  sprinkling  for  baptism,  image 
worship,  indulgences,  immaculate  conception,  etc. 

Then,  again,  look  at  the  Peclobaptists  after  the 
Reformation;  not  having  yet  learned  the  fearful 
results  of  departure  from  God's  Word,  but  retaining 
some  of  the  errors  of  Popeiy,  persecuting  for  opin- 
ion's sake  with  fines,  imprisonment  and  the  stake  — 
advocating  and  maintaining  the  union  of  Church 
and  State,  with  ungodly  rulers  as  the  head ;  com- 
pelling men  to  submit  and  to  pay  for  the  preaching 
of  doctrines  they  could  not  conscientiously  believe, 
and  to  support  ministers  in  whom  they  had  no  faith 
—  ministers  wThose  mouths  had  to  be  stopped  with 
fat  benefices,  and  who  thought  it  their  right  to  farm 
out  God's  heritage. 

Thus  the  tide  of  error  swept  over  the  earth, 
beginning  at  first  in  what  Pedobaptists  call  "  indif- 


Eleventh  Conversation.  181 

ferency,"  "  non-essentials,"  "  little  things,"  and 
"liberty;"  culminating  in  a  flood  of  desolation, 
deep,  dark  and  ruinous  to  the  liberty  and  spirituality 
of  the  church  and  the  souls  of  men.  Surely  the 
church  has  suffered  enough  from  the  ungodly  whims, 
foolish  notions,  assumptions,  and  traditions  of  men, 
to  warn  us  against  the  first  encroachments  of  error, 
and  to  "earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which  was 
once  delivered  unto  the  saints."  What  if  men  do 
call  us  narrow-minded,  bigoted,  and  intolerant. 
"  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man."  What 
if  .they  do  cry  out,  "  Liberty,  liberty  !  non-essential, 
non-essential !"  We  see  what  licentiousness  and 
ruin  their  liberty  and  non-essentials  have  brought  into 
the  church.  Let  us  set  our  faces  as  a  flint  against 
it.  When  the  Ephesians  cried  out,  in  wild  enthu- 
siasm, "  Great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians !"  the 
Apostles  rolled  on  the  more  vigorously  the  "  stone" 
that  "  was  cut  out  of  the  mountains  without  hands," 
until  at  last,  by  its  divine  power,  Diana  herself  came 
tumbling  down  in  ruins  to  the  ground. 

There  can  be  no  compromise  with  error.  Ours 
is  an  aggressive  as  well  as  a  defensive  warfare. 
While  we  are  set  for  the  defence  of  the  truth,  we 
are  also  called  to  "  wrestle  against  principalities, 
against  powers,  against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness 
of  this  world,  against  spiritual  wickedness  in  high 
places."  Let  us  abide  by,  therefore,  defend,  and 
contend  earnestly  for  the  truths  of  "  the  glorious 
Gospel  of  the  blessed  God."     "Moral  victories  are 


1 82  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

gained  in  passes  —  passes  narrow  as  that  between 
Mount  ^Etna  aud  the  sea.  No  great  calamity  can 
come  to  virtue  but  through  the  undefended  gateway 
of  some  small  neglect;  no  final  peace  triumphs,  till 
you  have  stopped  each  crevice  in  the  outer  wall." 

[Thus  closed  the  evening's  investigation.] 


Twelfth    Conversation. 

Pedobaptist  Opposition  to  Immersion. 


PPOSITION  to  immersion  being  the  sub- 
ject for  investigation  this  evening,  brother 
C.  began  the  Conversation  by  saying : 
"  Can  you  inform  me,  brother  E.,  what 
is  the  cause  of  the  opposition  to  immersion  by  so 
many  of  our  ministers,  when  they  admit  it  to  be 
baptism?" 

Presbyterian.  I  can  not  account  for  it  on  any 
reasonable  ground.  There  is,  however,  one  thing 
certain,  that  from  the  time  of  the  substitution  of 
sprinkling  and  pouring  by  Pedobaptists  for  the 
primitive  baptism,  and  more  especially  since  the 
time  the  clergy,  finding  it  much  more  comfortable 
to  sprinkle  than  immerse,  assumed  the  responsibility, 
and  declared  the  mode  immaterial,  they  have  brought 
all  their  influence  to  bear  on  the  public  mind  in  favor 
of  sprinkling.  Many  of  them  will  not  immerse; 
and  others,  holding  that  conscience  is  the  judge  of 
the  mode  of  baptism,  yet  labor,  with  all  the  sophis- 


184  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

try  they  are  able,  to  persuade  those  who  believe  it 
to  be  their  duty  to  have  their  consciences  satisfied 
by  immersion,  that  any  thing  else  will  answer  the 
same  purpose!  —  nay,  will  prevent  them  from  being 
immersed  if  they  possibly  can !  Why  are  they  so 
much  opposed  to  immersion,  when  they  declare  it  is 
baptism,  and  an  ordinance  of  God?  Why  will  they 
not  allow  candidates  to  have  their  consciences  satis- 
fied by  immersion,  after  having  asserted  so  loudly 
that  it  is  the  "  answer  of  a  good  conscience  ?"  Bap- 
tists oppose  sprinkling,  because  they  believe  it  to  be 
an  institution  of  man;  but  our  ministers  ridicule  and 
oppose  immersion,  while  believing  it  to  be  an  ordi- 
nance of  God  ? 

Methodist.     Yes ;  and  it  is  shameful  and  wicked. 

_P.  Have  you  not  noticed  of  late  a  disposition 
and  effort  on  the  part  of  some  to  form  a  combination 
in  which  loyalty  to  Christ  and  the  Bible  is  to  be 
repudiated,  and  all  distinctive  denominational  doc- 
trines and  usages  are  to  be  ignored,  or  kept  in  the 
back  ground :  a  grand  union  of  all  creeds  and  parties, 
of  spirits  of  all  colors,  and  to  join  which  a  man  is 
only  required  to  sink  his  individuality  —  his  inde- 
pendence—  his  manhood;  and  turn  his  conscience 
over  for  safe-keeping  to  humanitarian  and  liberal 
Christian  teachers?  That  is  all.  Very  accommo- 
dating, is  it  not  ? 

M.     Well,  well,  that  is  something  new. 

P.  New!  no,  not  new,  but  old  —  only  dressed 
up  in  a  new  garb.     If  you  look  at  the  leading  spirits 


Twelfth  Conversation.  185 

in  the  movement,  and  a  little  below  the  surface,  you 
will  see  the  old  leaven  of  evil  under  a  new  name, 
working  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  old  end  — 
the  destruction  of  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  of 
the  Bible,  that  have  so  long  stood  as  a  breakwater 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  pride  of  human 
wisdom  and  philosophy,  and  the  inventions  and 
expedients  of  theological  doctors.  But  on  none  do 
the  blows  fall  so  thick  and  heartily  as  upon  the  Bap- 
tists, seemingly  the  particular  object  of  a  united 
attack.  Here  is  a  declaration  of  war  to  the  end 
against  the  Baptists,  which  I  cut  to-day  from  a 
liberal  paper. 

"  We,  the  undersigned,  *  *  *  do  hereby  pledge 
ourselves  to  secure,  under  God,  an  open  communion, 
and  the  recognition  of  one  evangelical  ministry.  * 
*  *  And  we  furthermore  solemnly  pledge  our- 
selves to  stand  by  each  other  in  securing  these  ends." 

There  we  have  it — a  set  of  men  boasting  of  liber- 
alism, and  freedom  of  thought  and  action,  pledged 
to  destroy  the  restricted  communion  churches,  and 
especially  the  Baptist  churches,  against  which  they 
seem  to  have  a  particular  spite,  and  array  their  chief 
opposition.  What  a  nice  time  they  will  have  before 
they  accomplish  their  undertaking  ! 

M.     But  why  this  coalition  against  the  Baptists? 

P.  I  know  no  reason,  unless  it  be  that  the  Bap- 
tists resist  alike  the  efforts  of  infidels  and  the  inno- 
vations of  liberal  Christians  :  for  one  would  sweep 
away  the  Bible,  and  the  other  substitute  the  devices 


1 86  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

of  men  for  the  ordinances  of  Christ.  One  cry, 
almost  splitting  their  lungs  in  the  effort,  "Down 
with  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  and  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  and  up  with  human  reason!  Down  with 
sectarianism,  and  up  with  the  free  church  and  liberal 
Christianity!"  And  the  other,  with  a  glad  voice, 
shout,  "Down  with  immersion  and  close  commu- 
nion, and  up  with  sprinkling  and  open  communion!" 
But  behind  the  curtains,  the  wire-workers  rub  their 
hands  in  glee,  and  laugh  heartily  at  such  Congre- 
gationalists,  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Lutherans, 
etc.,  who  are  doing  their  ignoble  work,  only  in  a 
different  way. 

M.  I  never  thought  it  possible  that  we  could 
come  to  this — to  be  co-workers  with  Unitarians, 
Spiritualists, Universalists,  Infidels,  and  liberal  Chris- 
tians !  True,  I  am  opposed  to  close  communion 
myself,  but  I  was  not  aware  it  placed  me  in  such 
company  before  ! 

P.  But  let  us  return  to  the  opposition  to  immer- 
sion. Considering  the  great  opposition  it  has  had 
to  meet,  it  is  surprising  how  its  friends  have  become 
so  numerous. 

M.  I  thought  the  friends  of  immersion  were  a 
small  and  insignificant  body. 

P.  Not  so.  Nearly  all  Pedobaptists  believe  in 
immersion,  and  thousands  in  our  churches  have 
been  immersed ;  and  then  there  are  over  two  mil- 
lions of  Baptists  in  North  America;  besides,  there 
are  the  Greek  and  Oriental  churches,  with  a  popula- 


Twelfth  Conversation,  187 

tion  of  100,000,000,  "  though  adopting  the  baptism 
of  children,  yet  retain  immersion  to  this  day,  as 
essential  to  the  validity  of  the  rite,  and,  as  Bunsen 
remarks,  '  deny  that  there  is  any  efficacy  in  the 
"Western  form  of  baptism.' " 

M.  Why,  you  astonish  me  !  But  why  the  oppo- 
sition to  immersion  ? 

P.  There  is  no  just  cause  for  it.  We've  departed 
from  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  the  primitive 
church:  that  is  clearly  evident  from  the  admissions 
of  the  prominent  authors  I  have  given  you.  And 
because  the  Baptists  will  not  sanction  rebellion 
against  Christ's  ordinance,  we  declare  war  against 
them  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  flooding  the 
country  with  our  books  and  pamphlets,  charging 
them  with  "  exclusiveism,"  illiberality,  bigotry,  and 
ignorance;  at  the  same  time  boasting  of  our  own 
liberality,  and  superiority  in  culture,  refinement  and 
taste.  And  if  they  reply  to  our  abuse,  we  cry  out: 
"Why  don't  you  let  us  alone?"  but  continue  our 
warfare,  endeavoring  to  throw  the  blame  on  them. 

Various  are  the  ways  our  ministers  have  tried  to 
throw  contempt  on  the  ordinance  of  baptism  —  to 
prejudice  the  public  mind  against  it.  They  have 
blunderingly  performed  the  rite,  half  immersing 
some,  and  baptizing  others  face  downwards.  They 
have  pronounced  it  unscriptural  and  indelicate,  and 
then  immersed  both  sexes.  A  minister  in  Minne- 
sota labored  three  hours  to  prove  immersion  not 
baptism,  and  then  went  and  immersed  a  candidate. 


1 88  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Another  preached  a  sermon  against  immersion,  and 
then  invited  candidates  for  baptism  forward,  when 
two  gentlemen  stepped  up  and  requested  to  be 
immersed.  He  did  not  like  that  kind  of  a  finish  to 
his  masterly  argument,  and  snappingly  spoke  out, 
"We've  got  to  go  to  the  water!"  hurried  to  the 
place  of  baptism,  and  before  half  of  the  congregation 
could  get  there,  had  the  ceremony  over.  He  seemed 
angry  and  ashamed  of  the  task. 

M.  That  minister  should  never  baptize  me.  A 
man  must  have  a  queer  kind  of  conscience  that  will 
do  that.  And  a  candidate  that  will  submit  to,  and 
the  people  that  tolerate  such  mockery,  must  be  very 
short-sighted,  too.  I  have  seen  such  like  cases 
myself.  There  was  Mr.  Pleaseall,  and  Mr.  Strange, 
who  often  said  immersion  was  an  indelicate  ordi- 
nance, and  yet  did,  according  to  their  say  so,  indeli- 
cate things,  by  immersing.  Then  there  was  Mr. 
Twister,  and  Mr.  Commode,  who  were  "  great"  in 
quoting  "  baptism  is  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science," and  who  said  all  that  a  person  had  to  do 
was  to  believe  any  thing  baptism,  and  it  would 
answer;  and  yet  if  any  one  wanted  to  satisfy  his 
conscience  by  being  immersed,  they  would  not 
baptize  him  if  they  could  help  it.  It  did  seem  as  if 
their  consciences  had  to  govern  all  the  rest;  and 
that  they  wanted  to  impose  on  our  common  sense. 

P.  I  have  listened,  time  and  again,  to  sermons 
on  baptism,  by  ministers  who  believed  in  immer- 
sion, from  which    you  would    naturally   conclude 


Twelfth  Conversation.  189 

there  was  nothing  but  sprinkling  mentioned  in  the 
Bible.  To  knowingly  suppress  a  truth,  is  to  preach 
an  imperfect  Gospel,  and  mutilate  God's  Word. 

M.  And  every  one  that  adds  to,  or  takes  from 
God's  Word,  incurs  a  fearful  responsibility. 

P.  Then  look,  also,  at  the  opposition  manifested 
by  the  friends  of  infant  baptism.  To  doubt  its 
validity,  or  to  speak  against  it,  makes  many  of  its 
advocates  oppose  you  bitterly,  and  frequently  with 
anger.  They  manifest  a  strange  sensitiveness  about 
it.  Why  this,  if  they  are  satisfied  it  is  of  divine 
origin  ?  And  then,  to  what  strange  means  they  will 
resort  to  prevent  their  sprinkled  children  from  being 
baptized.  They  not  only  choose  the  baptism  and 
church  for  the  child,  but  when,  in  after  years,  it 
discovers  the  great  injustice  done  it,  and  requires 
immersion,  they  use  that  very  wrong  as  an  argu- 
ment to  prevent  it  from  doing  right.  "  Why  do 
you  wish  to  be  immersed?"  asks  the  minister. 
"  You  have  been  baptized.  Do  you  want  to  censure 
those  who  baptized  you  ?  Do  you  wish  to  say  you 
are  wiser  and  better  than  the  church,  your  minister 
and  parents?     It  is  sacrilege  to  be  rebaptized." 

M.  Are  you  not  over-coloring  the  matter, 
brother  E.  ? 

P.  I  am  speaking  what  I  know  to  be  the  truth. 
Here  is  a  little  book,  printed  by  the  Presbyterian 
Board  of  Publication,  entitled  "  Bible  Baptism,"  in 
which  the  author  says,  "  To  reject  their  present 
baptism  is  very  sinful.     They  cast  an  insult  on  their 


I90  Conversations  on  Baptism,. 

pastor,  on  their  church,  on  the  whole  denomination, 
and  on  the  great  mass  of  Christians  in  all  the  world. 
They  also  bring  divisions  and  unhappiness  into  their 
families."  "Besides,  in  so  doing,  they  change  a 
true  Bible  baptism  for  a  sectarian  baptism." — P.  4. 
All  of  which  justifies  what  I  have  heretofore  said, 
and  is  sheer  pettifogging,  an  appeal  to  sympathy 
and  prejudice,  and  not  to  principle.  There  never 
would  have  been  a  Christian  in  the  world  if  all  had 
been  governed  by  this  Presbyterian's  logic.  "If 
you  join  the  Christians,"  says  a  Pharasaic  Jewish 
Pabbi,  "  you  will  do  averj  sinful  thing,  cast  an  insult 
on  your  priest  and  on  your  church,  and  bring  divi- 
sions and  unhappiness  into  your  families."  And, 
says  the  Roman  Catholic  priest,  "  Why  do  you  wish 
to  become  a  Presb3'terian,  my  son  ?  Do  you  wish 
to  say  our  church  is  wrong —  that  you  are  wiser  and 
better  than  all  the  great  men  who  have  been  Cath- 
olics? Your  father  and  mother  are  Catholics:  the 
church  is  good  enough  for  them,  and  so  it  is  for 
you.  We  are  satisfied  with  our  church  relation, 
and  so  should  you  be.  Take  care,  or  you  will  fall 
into  the  snare  of  the  devil  —  you  will  commit  sacri- 
lege !" 

M.  The  reasoning  of  the  Catholic  is  just  as  good 
as  the  Presbyterian's;  and  as  logical  in  conclusion 
as  the  man  who  thought  it  was  right  to  carry  the 
grist  to  the  mill  in  one  end  of  the  bag  and  a  stone 
in  the  other,  because  his  father  had  done  so  before  him. 

P.     The  truth  is,  such  men  want  to  make  con- 


Twelfth  Conversation.  191 

sciences  for  their  people;  they  seem  to  think  that 
none  have  the  right  to  reject  what  they  imposed 
npon  them  in  infancy.  "  This  work  [sprinkling] 
is  done,"  says  the  same  Presbyterian  author,  "  and 
can  not  be  undone."  "  True,"  he  might  have 
said,  "we  have  no  authority  in  the  Bible  for  doing 
it,  but  we  have  taken  the  responsibility;  and  you 
need  not  trouble  yourselves  about  a  thing  of  which 
you  were  unconscious  at  the  time.  If  you  reject 
what  we  have  done  for  you,  you  will  insult  us,  and 
commit  a  very  great  sin  /" 

M.  I  don't  know  but  what  he  speaks  the  truth, 
when  he  says  that  Presbyterians  who  join  the  Bap- 
tists bring  divisions  and  unhappiness  into  their 
families;  for  Presbyterians  are  bitterly  opposed  to 
their  children  becoming  Baptists,  and  have  used 
very  harsh  measures  to  prevent  it.  There  was  one 
who  took  an  orphan  to  raise,  and  because  she  wanted 
to  be  immersed,  threatened  to  turn  her  out  penni- 
less on  the  world.  It  does  seem  that  the  author 
knew  what  he  was  writing  about. 

P.  And  here  is  another  case,  related  to  me  by  a 
prominent  actor  in  the  scene:  In  the  town  of  L., 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  during  a  protracted  meeting 
in  the  Baptist  church,  the  only  daughter  of  a 
Congregationalist  deacon  attending  the  meetings, 
became  interested  for  her  soul's  salvation,  and  was 
converted  to  Christ.  Led  to  the  examination  of  the 
Scriptures  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  she  felt  she 
had  never  been  baptized,  and  wanted  to  unite  with 


192  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

the  Baptist  church,  the  Congregationalist  minister 
refusing  to  immerse  her.  She  experienced  much 
opposition  at  home,  mingled  with  persecution,  her 
father  threatening  to  disinherit  her  if  she  persisted 
in  her  course.  At  the  meeting  on  Friday  evening 
she  felt  that  she  must  be  baptized,  and  signified  her 
intention  of  being  present  at  the  covenant  meeting 
next  day  to  relate  her  experience,  with  the  view  of 
being  baptized,  with  others,  on  the  following  Sabbath. 
Believing  it  to  be  her  duty  to  inform  her  parents  of 
her  decision,  she  accordingly  revealed  to  them  her 
purpose,  when  sorer  trials  than  ever  experienced 
burst  upon  her.  A  council  of  war  was  held,  to 
which  the  pastor,  deacons,  and  principal  brethren 
were  summoned.  After  much  consultation  about 
what  was  to  be  done,  it  was  decided  that  she  should 
be  taken  from  town  and  kept  over  Sabbath  to  pre- 
vent her  being  baptized.  On  Saturday  morning, 
the  day  she  expected  to  attend  covenant  meeting, 
she  was  informed  that  she  must  leave  town.  Her 
pleadings  and  remonstrances  were  of  no  avail ;  and, 
amid  tears  and  sobs,  she  was  taken  by  force  and 
conveyed  in  a  carriage  to  the  town  of  O.,  twenty 
miles  distant,  and  kept  over  the  Sabbath.  Then 
she  was  sent  to  a  Congregational  school  in  the  town 
of  R.,  where  the  principal  received  a  charge,  which 
was  under  all  circumstances  to  be  strictly  enforced, 
that  she  should  never  be  allowed  to  attend  p,  Baptist 
church  while  in  the  institution.  But  all  this  could 
not  prevent  her  from  becoming  a  Baptist.     While 


Twelfth  Conversation.  193 

at  the  institution,  she  wrote  to  the  pastor  of  the 
Baptist  church  for  counsel;  and  I  have  the  pleasure 
of  reading  you  his  letter  in  reply  : 

F ,  June  27, . 

My  dear  Sister  M. :  Permit  me  to  say  that  I  am  highly  grati- 
fied to  hear  from  you,  and  more  especially  that  you  are  still  hold- 
ing on  your  way,  resolutely  determined  to  serve  the  Lord,  and 
follow  the  blessed  Jesus  in  all  his  ways.  I  often  think  of  the  trials 
you  endured  at  L.,  and  my  prayer  is  that  you  may  persevere  unto 
the  end,  and  then  out  of  all  these  troubles  the  Lord  will  deliver 
you.  As  soon  as  that  time  of  life  arrives  in  which  you  are  in  one 
sense  your  own,  I  would  by  all  means  obey  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  This  will  not  only  augment  your  comfort 
and  happiness,  but  you  will  honor  Christ  by  thus  making  a  public 
profession  of  your  faith  in  him.  He  being  our  Saviour  and 
Redeemer,  and  having  commanded  us  thus  to  show  our  love  for 
him  ("If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments"),  we  surely  owe 
him,  above  all  others,  the  most  perfect  and  absolute  obedience. 
Thus  we  show  to  others  our  love  for  Jesus.  And  then,  obedience 
to  Christ  is  never  inconsistent  with  true  love  to  parents;  neither 
is  it  disrespectful  to  legitimate  parental  authority.  The  authority 
of  the  parent  becomes  unlawful  whenever  it  undertakes  to  super- 
sede the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  must  stand  first  in  our 
homage,  first  in  our  affections,  and  first  in  our  obedience.  Hence, 
obedience  to  parental  government,  when  it  annuls  the  commands 
of  God,  is  disobedience  to  the  laws  of  Christ,  and  ill  treatment  of 
him  who  died  for  us,  and  to  whom  we  owe  every  thing,  both  in 
this  life  and  that  which  is  to  come.  Thousands  have  died,  rather 
than  disobey  Christ ;  and  believe  me,  my  dear  sister,  it  is  infinitely 
better  to  die  in  the  path  of  obedience,  than  five  in  the  way  of 
disobedience,  from  any  cause  whatever. 

May  the  Lord  be  with  you  and  bless  you,  is  the  prayer  of 
your  affectionate  friend  and  pastor.  R . 

On  arriving  at  age  she  obeyed  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  united  with  a  Baptist  church. 
9 


194  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

M.  That  was  cruel.  For  my  part,  I  say,  if  onr 
children  want  to  be  baptized  when  they  grow  up, 
let  them.  And  yet,  I  have  heard  of  many  of  our 
friends  opposing  their  children.  There  was  a  Pres- 
byterian who  compelled  his  son  to  leave  home 
because  he  joined  the  Baptists.  And  I  knew  a 
young  lady,  formerly  a  Congregationalist,  who  was 
much  opposed  for  the  same  reason.  And  there  is  a 
Lutheran  minister,  who  is  so  much  afraid  of  immer- 
sion, that  he  makes  it  a  special  point  to  tell  his 
people  to  beware  of  the  Baptists.  Then  there  was 
one  of  our  ministers,  who,  notwithstanding  he 
immersed,  said  that  immersion  would  do  for  gulls, 
but  not  for  sheep. 

P.  That  is  decidedly  rich.  "What  a  nice  com- 
pliment he  paid  some  of  your  members,  and  what  a 
nice  position  he  occupied. 

M.  What  other  reason  can  you  give  for  the 
opposition  to  immersion  ? 

P.  That  immersion  is  always  protesting  against 
the  right  of  men  to  resort  to  expedients  in  divine 
things  —  against  our  ri^ht  to  change  the  ordinances 
of  God.  And,  again,  immersion  ever  speaks  of 
cross-bearing,  self-denial,  following  Christ.  But 
what  cross-bearing  and  self-denial  is  there  in  sprink- 
ling? Does  it  not  show  a  preference  for  ease  and 
comfort  ? 

31.  It  surely  looks  like  it.  There  is  one  thing 
that  inclines  me  to  believe  it  true.  When  some 
ministers  preach  against  immersion,  they  are  very 


Twelfth  Conversation.  195 

fond  of  trying  to  prove  that  'pouring  is  baptism.  And 
yet  they  will  not  pour  if  they  can  help  it. 

P.  Another  reason  is,  immersion  always  condemns 
our  sprinkling. 

M.     Yes,  that  is  clear. 

P.  It  is  my  firm  belief,  from  what  I  have  seen 
of  our  opposition  to  the  Baptists,  that  that  opposi- 
tion does  not  arise  so  much  from  our  disbelief  of 
the  truth  of,  and  our  aversion  to,  immersion  and 
restricted  communion,  as  it  does  from  the  consid- 
eration that,  as  held  and  practiced  by  the  Baptists, 
they  are  ever  proclaiming  against  our  theories  of 
baptism  and  communion  as  unscriptural  —  ever 
charging  us  with  the  fact  of  changing  the  ordinances 
of  Christ  —  ever  denying  our  right  to  interfere  with 
the  Gospel  plan — ever  speaking  against  human 
expediency  in  divine  things  —  ever  denying  the 
invention  of  baptismal  regeneration.  That  is  what 
makes  us  feel  so  sensitive,  and  oppose  them  so 
much.  We  make  no  objection  to  immersion  and 
restricted  communion  when  practiced  by  any  of  our 
churches;  but  how  bitterly  we  condemn  the  usages 
of  the  Baptists.  Why  so,  if  not  for  the  reasons  I 
have  stated  ? 

M.  I  must  agree  with  }tou  about  the  opposition 
to  immersion,  but  close  communion  I  oppose  myself. 

P.  We  will  look  at  that  hereafter.  So,  to  resume. 
I  have,  with  you,  seen  many  curious  things  among 
our  ministers.  There  was  Mr.  C.,who,  rather  than 
immerse,  got  a  Baptist  minister  to  do  it  for  him; 


196  Conversations  on  JB  apt  ism. 

but  the  candidate  had  the  good  sense  to  declare 
that  he  wouldn't  belong  to  any  church  whose  minis- 
ter preached  that  baptism  was  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience,  and  then  refused  baptism  because  the 
conscience  of  the  candidate  required  immersion. 
So  he  joined  the  Baptists. 

M.     I  admire  his  good  sense. 

P.  The  following  incident  was  given  me  by  an 
eye-witness.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Stageman  was  called 
upon  by  a  wealthy  gentleman  to  immerse  him. 
After  exhausting  the  usual  arguments  and  persua- 
sions customary  on  such  occasions,  Mr.  Stageman 
flatly  refused  to  grant  the  request.  The  gentleman 
told  him  it  was  his  conviction  of  duty  from  reading 
the  Bible,  and  he  could  not  violate  it,  and  said  he 
would  apply  to  the  Baptist  minister.  Here  was  a 
dilemma.  The  Presbyterians  would  lose  a  wealthy 
member,  and  to  immerse  him  would  place  the  Rev. 
gentleman  in  a  strange  position  before  society,  for 
it  was  well  known  he  was  opposed  to  immersion. 
But  there  was  no  alternative;  so  he  consented. 
.Now,  how  to  do  it,  was  the  next  thing.  He  had 
never  immersed  any  one;  nor  had  he  seen  any 
immersed.  He  would  have  a  platform  built  over 
the  water,  and  then,  with  a  small  effort,  he  could  dip 
him.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  chuckled  over 
this  original  expedient  or  not,  but  I  have  no  doubt 
there  was  chuckling  some  where.  Accordingly  the 
arrangements  were  all  perfected,  and  Mr.  S.  led  the 
candidate  to  a  proper  depth,  said  a  few  words  by 


Twelfth  Conversation,  197 

way  of  ceremony,  and  proceeded  to  dip  him.     But, 

ah! 

"  The  best  laid  schemes  of  mice  and  men, 
Gang  aft  agley :" 

In  the  very  act  the  Rev.  Stageman  lost  his  balance, 
and  gave  the  audience  a  fine-  specimen  of  lofty 
tumbling  by  plunging  head  first  into  the  water,  on 
the  candidate,  and  came  up  blowing  like  aporpoise; 
when,  leaving  the  benediction  to  take  care  of  itself, 
he  took  a  bee-line  for  home.  That  was  his  first  and 
last  effort.  I  suppose  he  did  not  like  the  finishing 
stroke  to  his  wonderful  invention. 

M.  Ah,  ha!  What  a  fall  was  there.  I  can't 
help  but  laugh  —  though  it  is  a  solemn  thing  to 
trifle  with  God's  ordinance.  Served  him  right. 
Ah,  ha! 

P.  Trifling,  yes,  mockery.  I  should  have  taken 
that  as  a  just  punishment  for  my  wickedness. 

M.  It  is  shameful  for  ministers  to  act  so.  It 
would  not  appear  so  bad  if  they  did  not  acknow- 
ledge immersion  as  an  ordinance  of  God.  I  can  not 
comprehend  it. 

P.  I  have  been  at  a  loss  to  understand  it  myself. 
I  have  looked  at  their  conduct  in  the  most  favorable 
and  charitable  light  I  know  how;  and,  after  all,  I 
am  forced  to  the  conclusion  —  it  is  a  greater  cross 
to  immerse  than  sprinkle.  It  is  more  inconvenient 
and  unpleasant  for  them  to  go  down  into  the  water 
and  bury  a  believer  with  Christ  in  baptism,  like 
Philip,  than  to  stand  in  a  comfortable  church  and 


198  Conversations  on  Baftism, 

put  a  few  drops  of  water  on  the  head  from  a  bowl ! 
They  lack  the  self-denying  spirit  which  their  Master 
and  the  Apostles  had. 

M.  But  the  servant  should  not  be  greater  than 
his  Lord.     He  has  commanded  and  requires  it. 

P.  But  they  will  not,  if  they  can  prevent  it;  but 
try  every  art  to  induce  the  people  to  be  sprinkled. 
Why  this,  if  not  afraid  of  the  cross  ?  Why  refuse 
to  immerse  and  be  immersed,  when  they  acknow- 
ledge it  baptism?  What  keeps  them  out  of  the 
water,  if  it  is  not  their  own  ease  and  comfort,  and 
the  odium  they  fear  will  be  heaped  upon  them? 
They  can  not  say  that  sprinkling  will  do  as  well, 
for  in  doing  so  they  charge  the  Saviour  and  the 
Apostles  with  folly. 

Many,  it  is  to  be  feared,  first  consult  their  pride, 
that  looks  in  dread  at  the  water.  Then  they  begin 
to  look  for  an  easier  way,  which  is  not  hard  for  one 
to  find  who  is  bent  on  securing  it;  and  try  and 
persuade  themselves  that  sprinkling  will  do  as  well 
as  immersion.  And  then,  persisting  in  the  wrong, 
they  begin  to  think  they  are  right,  and  end  in  argu- 
ing for  its  defence.  The  next  step,  to  save  them- 
selves from  going  into  the  water,  shaking  in  their 
shoes  at  the  very  idea,  is  to  use  their  efforts  to  keep 
others  from  following  the  Saviour,  by  appealing  to 
their  prejudices  and  whims,  and  by  ridiculing,  in 
almost  eveiy  possible  way,  the  divine  ordinance, 
appealing  to  and  arraj-ing  against  it  some  of  the 
worst  passions  of  the  unregenerate  heart.     Thus  do 


Twelfth  Conversation,  199 

they  reach  the  bottom  of  the  sliding  scale.  Strange 
that  the  people  can  not  see  that  ease  and  self-interest 
are  the  foundation  of  the  earnest  efforts  of  many 
ministers  in  advocating  sprinkling  for  baptism. 

M.  That  seems  a  little  severe,  but  I  believe  it 
to  be  the  truth.  Many  of  our  ministers,  though 
believers  in  immersion,  will  not  immerse  if  they  can 
possibly  avoid  it.  It  does  seem  from  this  that 
the}7  sprinkle  because  it  is  the  easiest  way  —  not  as 
great  a  cross.  But  yet  we  should  not  be  too  severe 
on  them ;  for  it  does  look  a  little  hard,  to  be  sure,  to 
go  down  into  the  water,  sometimes  cold  and  icy-like, 
as  our  Baptist  friends  do,  when  they  can  stand  in  a 
nice  warm  house,  take  a  bowl  of  comfortable  water, 
dip  the  tips  of  their  fingers  in  it,  and  place  them  on 
the  heads  of  the  candidates,  as  I  have  seen  some  of 
them  do. 

P.  Yes,  and  they  call  that  sprinkling  —  they 
call  it  baptism;  and  presume  to  give  the  Bible  as 
authority  for  it.  I  tell  you,  my  brother,  pride,  with 
many,  is  at  the  bottom  of  this  opposition  to  immer- 
sion. We  are  too  proud  to  follow  our  Saviour,  by 
being  buried-  with  him  in  baptism.  AVe  want  a 
less  mortifying  and  self-denying  method,  and  we 
invent  it. 

31.  It  must  be  as  you  say,  though  it  is  lament- 
able to  have  to  acknowledge  it.  There  are  hundreds 
who  stand  connected  with  Pedobaptist  churches,  who 
believe  that  immersion  is  exclusively  Christian 
baptism,  yet  who  have  never  been  baptized.     Why 


200  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

is  it  so,  if  they  are  not,  as  you  say,  afraid  of  the  cross 
—  of  the  finger  of  scorn  being  pointed  at  them?  I 
can  account  for  it  in  no  other  way. 

P.  How  can  you,  when  many  of  us  look  upon 
immersionists  as  a  poor,  bigoted,  and  deluded  peo- 
ple; and  smile,  in  our  fancied  superiority,  that  we 
are  more  enlightened,  decent,  and  refined.  We 
contend  that  we  have  a  more  excellent  way  than 
that  in  which  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles  walked. 
We  look  on  with  pity  and  contempt  when  we  see  a 
candidate  immersed,  and  thauk  God  we  are  above 
that! 

M.  And  yet  going  down  into  the  water  in  the 
coldest  days  of  winter  never  seems  to  hurt  the  Bap- 
tists. Why  they  love  it,  and  they  love  it  because 
they  have  a  consciousness  of  obedience  to  the 
Saviour's  command,  and  go  into  the  water  cheerful 
and  happy,  singing  with  glad  voices — 

"  Through  floods  and  flames,  if  Jesus  leads, 
I'll  follow  where  he  goes." 

P.  We  talk  of  immersion  endangering  the  health, 
and  all  that  kind  of  nonsense ;  but  I  have  yet  to  see 
and  hear  of  the  first  one  who  has  suffered  any  disa- 
bility therefrom;  and  I  have  seen  young  and  delicate 
ladies  go  into  the  water  and  come  out  with  the  ice 
on  their  garments,  but  with  faces  all  radiant  with 
love  to  Jesus.  And  yet  one  Presbyterian  author 
says :  "  There  is  no  doubt  that  individuals  are  every 


Twelfth  Conversation. 


201 


year  laid  in  untimely  graves  on  account  of  their 
extravagant  views  in  this  matter." 

M.  I  know  all  about  that  kind  of  nonsense.  It 
is  the  same  old  tune  I  have  heard  played  by  many 
of  our  friends  for  the  want  of  argument.  I  am 
inclined  to  think  he  is  more  afraid  of  the  water 
himself  than  he  is  of  the  death  of  the  baptized. 

P.  I  see  by  the  clock  it  is  now  late,  so,  if  you 
please,  we  will  close  our  evening's  Conversation. 
In  our  next  Conversation  let  us  examine  the  Bap- 
tists ;  but  as  I  am  not  fully  prepared  to  enter  upon 
the  investigation  now,  I  propose  that  we  postpone 
our  meetings  for  some  time,  so  that  I  can  enter 
more  understanding^  on  the  subject. 

[This  being  satisfactory  to  brother  C,  they 
adjourned  to  meet  some  time  in  the  future.] 


Thirteenth    Conversation, 


The  Baptists   Examined. 


» 


AVING  concluded  his  private  investiga- 
tions, Mr.  E.  called  on  his  Methodist 
friend  and  invited  him  to  his  house  to 
resume  the  Conversations.  Mr.  C.  was 
very  anxious  to  examine  the  Baptists,  and,  soon  after 
entering,  commenced  the  conversation. 

Methodist.  Well,  brother  E.,  I  am  glad  you  are 
ready  to  resume  our  Conversations.  I  am  convinced 
that  the  Baptists  have  the  best  of  the  argument  on 
baptism,  and  I  should  like  to  know  more  about 
them. 

Presbyterian.  I  should  prefer  listening  to  a 
Baptist:  I  may  do  them  injustice.  I  have  hereto- 
fore had  no  very  friendly  feelings  for  them,  and 
certainly  no  love  for  their  peculiar  views. 

M.  The  more  likely  you  will  be  to  speak  nothing 
in  their  favor  but  the  truth.  You  will  be  an  impar- 
tial witness.     I  confess  that  I  have  been  very  much 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  203 

prejudiced  against  them.  They  are  always  harping 
on  baptism,  and,  as  I  have  been  told,  think  it  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  and  consider  themselves  better 
than  other  Christians.  After  all,  I  am  inclined  to 
believe  they  are  a  good  sort  of  people,  though  rather 
ignorant  and  bigoted. 

P.  Ah,  ha !  To  think  that  you,  and  myself,  and 
our  friends,  should  talk  about  the  Baptists  being 
ignorant  and  bigoted,  and  speak  so  patronizingly  of 
them !  In  what  denomination  can  you  find  more 
eminent  scholars  and  devoted  Christians?  Listen 
to  what  Dr.  Chalmers,  the  celebrated  Presbyterian 
of  Scotland,  had  to  say  of  the  Baptists  of  England: 

"Let  it  never  be  forgotten  of  the  particular  Bap- 
tists of  England  that  they  form  the  denomination  of 
Fuller,  and  Carey,  and  Ryland,  and  Hall,  and  Foster; 
that  they  have  originated  one  among  the  greatest 
of  all  missionary  enterprises ;  that  they  have  enriched 
the  Christian  literature  of  our  country  with  author- 
ship of  the  most  exalted  piety,  as  well  as  of  the  first 
talent  and  the  first  eloquence ;  that  they  have  waged 
a  very  noble  and  successful  war  with  the  hydra  of 
Antinomianism. ;  that,  perhaps,  there  is  not  a  more 
intellectual  community  of  ministers  in  our  island,  or 
wrho  have  put  forth,  in  proportion  to  their  number, 
a  greater  amount  of  mental  power  and  mental 
activity  in  the  defence  of  our  common  faith;  and 
what  is  better  than  all  the  triumphs  of  genius  or 
understanding,  who,  by  their  zeal  and  fidelity,  and 
pastoral  labor  among  the  congregations  which  they 


204  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

have  reared,  have  clone  more  to  swell  the  lists  of 
genuine  discipleship  in  the  walks  of  private  society, 
and  thus  both  to  uphold  and  to  extend  the  living 
Christianity  of  our  nation." — Close  of  a  discourse  on 
Romans,  iv.  9-15. 

M.     That  speaks  well  for  his  heart,  an}^  how. 

P.  Yes,  and  for  his  head,  too.  But  let  us  look 
at  the  Baptists.  The  "  Baptists,  then,  properly 
defined,  are  those  who  hold  that  the  baptism  of 
Christian  believers  is  of  universal  obligation,  and 
practice  accordingly.  And  they  acknowledge  this 
because  they  acknowledge  no  master  but  Christ ; 
no  rule  of  faith  but  his  Word;  no  baptism  but  that 
which  is  preceded  and  hallowed  by  personal  piety ; 
no  church  but  that  which  is  the  body  of  Christ, 
pervaded,  governed,  and  animated  by  his  Spirit." 
As  to  your  insinuation,  that  they  believe  in  baptis- 
mal regeneration,  it  is  groundless.  It  is  Pedobap- 
tists  who  believe  in  baptismal  regeneration,  not  the 
Baptists.  And  such  a  charge  comes  with  a  poor 
grace  from  you,  considering  what  your  Discipline 
says. 

M.  I  should  like  to  know  what  our  Discipline 
has  to  do  with  baptismal  regeneration. 

P.     Let  me  read  you  a  few  extracts  from  it : 

"Dearly  beloved,  forasmuch  as  *  *  *  our 
Saviour  Christ  saith,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water, 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  : — I  beseech  you  to  call  upon  God  the  Father, 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  of  his  bounteous 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  205 

goodness  he  will  grant  to  these  persons  that  which 
by  nature  they  can  not  have;  that  they,  being 
baptized  with  water,  may  also  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  being  received  into  Christ's  holy 
church,  may  continue  lively  members  of  the  same." 
—P.  138. 

M.  Stop,  brother  E.,  does  our  Discipline  say 
that  ?     Let  me  see.     [Reads.]     It  is  as  you  say. 

P.  Yes,  and  it  says  more:  "We  call  upon  thee 
for  these  persons,  that  they,  coming  to  thy  holy 
baptism,  may  also  be  filled  with  thy  Holy  Spirit. 
Receive  them,  0  Lord,"  etc.— 139.  "  Well  beloved, 
who  have  come  hither,  desiring  to  receive  holy 
baptism,  you  have  heard  how  the  congregation  hath 
prayed,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  would  vouchsafe 
to  receive  you,  to  bless  you,"  etc. — 140.  "  Grant 
that  the  persons  now  to  be  baptized  may  receive 
the  fullness  of  thy  grace,  and  ever  remain  in  the 
number  of  thy  faithful  and  elect  children." — 143. 

M.  Well,  I  have  nothing  more  to  say.  Our 
Discipline  certainly  teaches  baptismal  regeneration, 
whether  we  believe  it  as  Methodists  or  not. 

P.  You  charge  the  Baptists  with  always  harping 
on  baptism.  Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  we  preach 
more  on  baptism  than  they  do  ? 

31.     No ;    that  can  not  be. 

P.     It  is  so.     The  fact  is,  when  they  preach  about 
it,  we  always  raise  a  hubbub.     They  strike  such 
hard  blows  with  the  Bible,  that  they  make  us  sore, 
restive,  and  kick.     "  The  Baptists  have  the  advan- 


206  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

tage  of  us,"  said  Prof.  Porson :  when  they  preach 
immersion,  it  is  what  we  believe;  but  in  preaching 
immersion  they  overthrow  our  sprinkling.  And 
then  we,  to  set  it  up  all  right  again  before  the  peo- 
ple, have  to  change  the  issue,  and  charge  our  guns 
with  "  non-essential"  shot,  and  pepper  them  for  what 
we  call  their  exclusiveness  and  illiberality.  There's 
where  the  trouble  is. 

M.  Your  illustration  is  a  novel  one,  and  it  may 
be  as  you  say.  It  certainly  accounts  for  the  fact, 
that  when  a  Baptist  minister  preaches  a  series  of 
sermons  on  baptism,  our  preachers  open  their  bat- 
teries all  around. 

P.  Yes,  then  we  make  common  cause.  The 
Presbyterian  and  Congregationalist  will  denounce 
the  Methodists  for  their  Episcopacy,  ministerial 
aristocracy,  and  closed  class-meetings  and  love-feasts, 
and  the  Methodists  will  denounce  them  for  their 
particular  doctrines;  but  once  let  a  Baptist  appear 
in  the  field,  and  we  cease  hostilities,  form  a  coalition, 
and  present  a  united  front  against  him.  We  are 
lovingly  united  then.  It  is  a  wonder  how  the  Bap- 
tists have  made  such  progress  against  so  much 
opposition. 

M.  What  you  say  is  too  true.  I  once  listened 
to  a  debate  on  baptism  by  a  Presbyterian  and  Bap- 
tist, when  one  of  our  celebrated  controversialists 
preached  a  sermon  on  the  evening  of  the  day  when 
the  debate  closed,  over  two  hours  in  length,  against 
the  Baptist. 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  207 

P.  The  truth  is,  ice  are  the  cause  of  all  this  contro- 
versy on  the  mode  of  baptism.  There  would  have  been 
no  trouble  about  it,  if  we  had  not  changed  the  ordi- 
nance—  if  we  had  not  substituted  pouring  and 
sprinkling  for  immersion.  That  of  itself  is  sufficient 
justification  for  the  course  of  the  Baptists.  When 
they  preach  immersion,  and  deny  our  right  to  sub- 
stitute our  whims  therefor,  we  have  no  reason  to 
complain.  All  the  discussion,  contention,  and  strife 
there  has  been  in  the  church  on  this  subject  is  justly 
attributable  to  us. 

Talk  about  the  Baptists  preaching  too  much  on 
baptism!  Why,  you  can  hardly  open  the  New 
Testament  without  your  eye  resting  on  some  thing 
connected  with  it.  Did  Jesus  think  and  talk  too 
much  of  baptism  wThen,  in  his  grand  charge  to  his 
disciples,  after  his  resurrection,  he  said:  "  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ?" — Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  20.  That  is  what  the  Baptists  are  doing  — 
teaching  and  baptizing.  Jesus  has  put  "  baptize" 
in  their  commission,  and  they  dare  not  suppress  it, 
nor  erase  it.  If  the  Pedobaptists  will  complain  of 
this,  let  them ;  but  for  the  Baptists  they  must  still 
go  on  and  teach  the  people  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  the  Master  hath  commanded.  To  be 
silent,  would  be  criminal.  Guilty  of  such  a  breach 
of  trust,  how  could  we  expect  them  to  be  faithful  in 
other  things  ? 


208  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

Eloquently  has  one  of  their  writers  said :  "  Can 
the  Baptists  compromise  their  principles  for  any 
reason  ?  They  certainly  can  not.  Truth  is  a  unit 
—  must  be  a  unit,  or  cease  to  be  truth;  and  it  can 
not  be  mutilated  in  any  part  without  peril  to  its 
existence  as  a  whole.  There  is  no  neutrality  here. 
Gospel  truth,  as  Baptists  hold  it,  is  a  sacred  legacy 
that  has  been  handed  down  to  them  from  sword- 
point  to  sword-point.  Every  item  of  it  has  fluttered 
over  the  gibbet.  The  will  that  bequeathed  it  has 
been  read  in  the  lurid  flames  of  Baptist  martyrs 
from  the  days  that  bonfires  were  kindled  to  torture 
them  in  the  streets  of  pagan  Rome,  to  the  days  of 
James  the  First,  in  the  streets  of  Christian  London. 
Almost  every  hill  and  valley  of  Europe  has  glowed 
wTith  these  fires.  The  standard  lamps  by  which  men 
read  our  principles  all  through  the  dark  ages,  were 
the  writhing  bodies  of  Baptist  Lollards,  and  Wal- 
denses,  and  Petrobrussians.  Bold  men,  like  Jerome 
of  Prague,  Leonard  Keyser,  and  George  Wagner ; 
delicate  women,  such  as  Elizabeth  Gaunt,  Joan 
Boucher,  and  Ann  Askew,  have  tracked  down  the 
illustrious  train  of  burning  ones  from  the  days  of 
Peter  and  Paul.  Late  as  1611,  the  very  year  in 
which  James  published  the  common  English  Bible, 
he  carefully  burnt  the  body  of  that  sturdy  old  Bap- 
tist, Edward  Wightman,  in  the  streets  of  Lichfield, 
that  Englishmen  might  have  a  good  light  to  read  its 
Baptist  truths  by.  "Wightman's  crime  consisted  in 
saying,  '  That  the  baptizing  of  infants  is  an  abomin- 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  209 

able  custom  :  that  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism 
are  not  to  be  celebrated  as  they  are  now  practiced 
in  the  Church  of  England.'" 

Have  you  ever  noticed  how  morbidly  sensitive 
some  of  us  are  on  baptism  ? 

M.     No ;  how  is  it  ? 

P.  Our  ministers  may  advocate  sprinkling  and 
denounce  immersion,  as  much  as  they  please;  it  is 
all  right  and  commendable,  and  our  people  largely 
enjoy  it.  But  when  a  Baptist  preaches  on  baptism, 
how  our  quills  start  up.  How  we  commence  play- 
ing on  the  old  string  "  non-essential."  How  we 
cry  out,  "  indifferency"  —  "the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience,"  etc.  And  yet  we  won't  allow  a  Baptist 
minister  to  satisfy  his  conscience  by  preaching 
immersion  if  we  can  prevent  it.  The  truth  is,  we 
are  wrong  on  sprinkling,  and  they  are  right  on 
immersion.  They  preach  what  the  Bible  teaches, 
while  we  labor  to  prove  that  it  does  not  mean  what 
it  says.  Our  ministers  are  ever  rolling  the  stone  up 
the  hill,  but  never  reach  the  top. 

M.  How  can  they,  when  the  Saviour's  baptism, 
and  the  Eunuch's,  and  Paul's,  are  right  in  the  way  ? 
"  Common  sense"  wouldn't  undertake  it. 

P.  The  objection  you  have  made  against  the 
Baptists  has  been  urged  strongly  by  the  Presbyte- 
rians. Dr.  Fairchild,  in  his  work  on  Baptism, 
published  by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication, 
says:  "  They  [the  Baptists]  lay  very  great  stress 
on  immersion,  and  seek  every  way  to  magnify  its 


210  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

importance.  Immersion  is  the  most  prominent 
topic  in  their  discourses."  "  Among  the  many 
thousands  who  listen  to  their  instructions  may  there 
not  be  multitudes  who  receive  the  impression  that 
immersion  is  the  great  essential  to  salvation  —  the 
safest  passport  to  heaven." — Pp.  12,  13. 

What  shall  I  say  of  this? — shall  I  call  it  slander? 
Every  Baptist  minister  knows  it  is  not  true.  Every 
Baptist  minister  knows,  and  so  would  our  Doctor 
of  Divinity  have  known  it  also  if  he  had  opened  his 
eyes  to  the  truth,  that  the  Baptists  preach  always 
that  regeneration  comes  before  baptism  —  that  they 
never  baptize  a  person  until  they  believe  he  is 
converted. 

In  reply  to  these  charges  of  our  Presbyterian 
Doctor,  a  Baptist  minister,  eminent  for  his  attain- 
ments, and  abundant  in  labors,  says : 

"  Is  '  immersion  the  most  prominent  topic  in  their 
public  discourses?'  I  have  never  discovered  it.  I 
have  attended  Baptist  meetings  from  my  childhood. 
I  can  not  recollect  ever  to  have  heard  a  sermon  on 
baptism  from  a  Baptist  minister  during  the  period 
of  my  youth.  I  had  been  an  ordained  Baptist  min- 
ister half-a-dozen  years  when,  for  the  first  time  in 
my  life,  I  heard  a  Baptist  minister  preach  on  bap- 
tism. And  within  the  field  of  my  observation 
during  the  sixteen  years  of  my  ministry,  it  is  indis- 
putably true,  that  Peclobaptists  have  preached  on 
baptism  twice  as  often  as  Baptists.  I  would  com- 
mend to  Dr.  Fairchild,  and  to  the  Board  which 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  211 

endorses  and  publishes  such  statements,  the  com- 
mandment— '  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
against  thy  neighbor.' " 

Here  is  what  another  Baptist  writes: 
"We  hear  very  little,  comparatively,  of  the  old- 
fashioned  kind  of  preaching.  We  seem  to  forget 
that  a  new  generation  is  rising  up,  and  that  the  old 
truths  are  as  essential  for  them  to  hear  as  the  gen- 
eration past.  Our  distinctive  features  are  now 
handled  so  delicately  by  some,  that  their  keen  edge 
is  blunted.  On  baptism  and  communion  we  have 
been  denounced  so  much,  that  we  have  become 
sensitive,  through  fear  of  offending  delicate  ears, 
and  seem  to  have  lost  our  manliness.  And  hence 
we  seldom  hear  a  sermon  on  the  great,  distinguish- 
ing truths  that  made  our  fathers  so  successful,  and 
gave  us  our  prominence  as  a  church.  The  doctrines 
of  grace  are  so  tenderly  handled,  and  dressed  up 
so  fashionably  —  like  sugar  coated  pills,  lest  they 
offend  delicate  stomachs  —  that,  as  an  Episcopalian 
once  said  of  sprinkling,  it  is  hard  enough  to  call 
them  the  Gospel  any  way !  Thus,  for  fear  of  giving 
offence  to  men  of  liberal  views,  who  have  really  no 
love  for  the  Gospel  at  heart,  we  are  afraid  to  speak 
out  our  opinions  boldly,  and  keep  in  the  back- 
ground the  doctrines  which  have  told  so  wonder- 
fully for  good  on  the  world." 

M.  I  don't  want  any  man  to  cloak  his  sentiments 
or  sacrifice  his  independence  for  me.  I  want  him 
to  be  frank  and  outspoken ;    and  if  he  does  give 


212  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

rough  and  hard  blows,  I  can  respect  him  for  his 
manliness,  far  more  than  the  man  who  is  afraid  to 
speak  his  honest  sentiments  for  fear  of  giving  offence. 
I  have  little  confidence  in  men  who  profess  to  ride 
neutral  hobbies :  their  time  is  too  much  occupied  in 
looking  how  to  steer  clear  of  the  truth,  or  in  leaning 
over  to  one  side.  Neutrality  is  a  sorry  nag  to  ride  at 
best. 

P.  And  yet  most  people  generally  like  to  hear 
a  good  gospel  sermon  —  to  hear  an  outspoken,  fear- 
less advocate;  and  the  "  trimmers" — like  the  minis- 
ter who  had  one  sermon  that  could  be  used  either 
for  a  funeral  or  thanksgiving  occasion,  by  merely 
changing  a  word  here  and  there  —  sooner  or  later 
come  to  grief. 

The  secret  of  all  this  opposition,  in  addition  to 
what  I  have  said  before,  is  —  the  Pedobaptists  want 
the  Baptists  to  preach  less  on  baptism,  because 
it  troubles  them  very  much  to  hear  a  full  Gospel 
preached.  If  Peter  were  to  stand  up  in  some  of  our 
churches,  and  thunder  out,  "  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,"  they  would  cry  out,  "  there, 
that  Baptist  is  harping  on  baptism  again  !"  Every 
time  immersion  is  preached  it  rises  up  like  an  accus- 
ing spirit  before  a  Pedobaptist,  nor  can  he  bid  it 
"  down !"  It  will  be  an  unfortunate  day  in  the 
world's  history,  when  the  Baptists  cease  preaching  a 
full  Gospel. 

Another  thing,  I  suppose,  you  have  against  the 
Baptists,  is  their 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  213 

CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

M.  Yes;  and  right  heartily  do  I  oppose  them 
for  that.  I  admit  you  have  had  the  best  of  the 
argument  on  baptism,  but  you  will  find  it  harder 
work  to  prove  close  communion  right. 

P.  It  is  not  strange  that  those  who  boast  of 
changing  Christ's  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  disre- 
gard his  example,  should  also  seek  to  destroy  the 
Bible  rule  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  advocate  open 
communion.  The  change  of  one  necessarily  de- 
mands the  change  of  the  other;  so  that  consistency 
requires  that,  having  substituted  their  own  inven- 
tions for  the  divine  rule  of  baptism,  they  should 
now  change  the  apostolic  example  of  communion. 

M.  It  may  appear  strange  to  you,  brother  E., 
but  why  can  not  all  Christians  commune  together  here,  if 
they  expect  to  commune  together  in  heaven?  as  our  minis- 
ters say. 

P.  You  forget  that  there  is  no  Lord's  Supper  in 
heaven.  From  the  way  some  of  your  preachers 
"thank  God, there  is  no  close  communion  in  heaven," 
I  suppose  they  expect  to  partake  of  the  Supper 
there. 

M.  [Looking  confused  and  ashamed.]  You 
have  me  there  again,  I  must  confess. 

P.  I  have  been  ashamed,  time  and  time  again, 
to  hear  Christians  talk  in  this  way  —  of  communion 
in  heaven.  They  are  certainly  very  ignorant,  or 
very  unfair.     Ignorant,  in  saying    they   expect  to 


214  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  heaven  ;  or  unfair, 
in  representing  the  Baptists  as  sellish  and  bigoted. 
Some  of  our  members,  whenever  the  subject  of 
close  communion  is  mentioned,  raise  their  eyes  in 
devout  thankfulness,  and  with  a  fervent  voice  ex- 
claim: "Thank  God,  there  is  no  close  communion 
in  heaven!"  Just  as  if  they  meant:  "  Thank  God,  we, 
will  all  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  together  in  heaven  /" 

One  Sabbath  day  a  Pedobaptist  minister  told  his 
delighted  brethren  the  following  dream  :  "  Brethren, 
I  thought  I  was  in  heaven,  and  wanted  to  see  some 
of  our  Baptist  friends,  and  I  walked  —  and  I  walked 
—  to  find  them,  until  I  came  to  one  corner  fenced 
off,  when,  looking  over,  I  spied  them  around  the 
Lord's  table." 

"  Thank  God  !"  said  a  Baptist,  on  hearing  of  it; 
"  they  were  there  anyhow!  But  I  am  afraid  our 
liberal  Christian  friend,  unless  he  teaches  the  people 
more  truth  than  that,  will  awake  to  find  himself 
*  fenced  '  out  altos-ether !" 

And  this  kind  of  currency  is  passed  by  and  among 
our  friends,  without  detecting  its  counterfeit  charac- 
ter.   It  is  the  kind  of  logic  we  meet  the  Baptists  with. 

31.  Well,  brother  E.,  can  you  tell  me  what  the 
Lord's  Supper  w^as  instituted  for? 

P.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  for  the  remem- 
brance of  Jesus.  Let  us  see  what  the  Bible  saya 
about  it.  Turn  to  Matt.  xxvi.  26-28:  "Jesus  took 
bread,  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body. 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  215 

And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it 
to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it.  For  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Now  turn  to  1st 
Cor.  xi.  23-27,  and  see  what  Paul  says :  "  Take,  eat; 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you.  This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me.  This  cup  is  the  new  testa- 
ment in  my  blood:  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's 
death  till  he  come."  Thus,  you  see,  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  the  Supper  was  "instituted 
by  Christ  for  a  memorial  of  his  death. 

Again :  If  you  will  examine  the  apostolical  exam- 
ple, you  will  see  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  insti- 
tuted for  the  church,  partaken  of  only  in  a  church 
capacity,  and  by  baptized  believers  in  union  of  doc- 
trine and  fellowship.  Turn  to  the  following  pas- 
sages: Acts  ii.  41,  42  —  "Then  they  that  gladly 
received  his  word  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls.  And  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apos- 
tles' doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of 
bread,  and  in  prayers."  Acts  iv.  32  —  "And  the 
multitude  of  them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart 
and  of  one  soul."  Acts  xx.  7 — "  And  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  together 
to  break  bread,"  etc.  Here  you  have  union  of  faith, 
doctrine  and  practice.  They  believed  the  Gospel, 
participated  in  its  saving  power  and  joyful  experi- 


216  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

ence,  obeyed  its  requirements  by  being  baptized, 
and  then,  in  the  church,  commemorated  the  death 
of  their  divine  Master.  Thus,  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
exclusively  administered  to  baptized  believers. 

The  New  Testament  churches  consisted  wholly 
of  baptized  believers.  As  the  Hon.  Baptist  W. 
Noel  says,  in  his  "Essay  on  Christian  Baptism,"  p. 
8,  "  The  converts  were  baptized  at  Philippi,  (Acts 
xvi.  15,  33;)  at  Corinth,  (Acts  xviii.  8;  1  Cor.  i.  13; 
xv.  29;)  at  Ephesus,  (Acts  xix.  5;  Eph.  iv.  5;)  at 
Colosse,  (Col.  ii.  12;)  and  throughout  Asia  Minor, 
(1  Pet.  iii.  21 ;)  the  disciples  were  also  baptized  at 
Rome,  (Rom.  vi.  3 ;)  and  since  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  discipline  of  these  churches  differed  from 
that  of  the  other  apostolic  churches,  we  may  infer  that  all 
the  converts  in  those  churches  were  similarly  baptized" 
Peter  said  to  believers  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
"Be  baptized  eve^  one  of  you,"  and  they  "were 
baptized."  Acts  ii.  38,  41;  see  also  x.  48.  So  that 
the  Baptist  churches  are,  in  this  respect,  "  followers 
of  the  churches  of  God,"  as  first  founded  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles.     1  Thess.  ii.  14. 

M.  Well,  grant  all  you  say,  was  not  the  Lord's 
Supper  instituted,  also,  for  communion  with  each 
other,  no  difference  to  what  church  we  belong? 

P.  No.  The  Lord's  Supper,  in  addition  to  the 
foregoing,  is  for  communion  with  Christ,  and  not  to 
show  our  love  for  one  another.  Thus  the  Apostle 
says :  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?    The  bread 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  217 

which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ?"  — 1  Corinthians  x.  16.  And 
hence,  in  communion  it  is  required  that  we  spiritu- 
ally discern  the  Lord's  body,  "  for  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  dam- 
nation [condemnation]  to  himself,  not  discerning  the 
Lord's  body." — 1  Cor.  xi.  29.  "  For  we  being  many 
are  one  bread,  and  one  body ;  for  we  are  all  partak- 
ers of  that  one  bread." — 1  Cor.  x.  17.  "  He  that 
eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in 
me,  and  I  in  him." — John  vi :  56. 

And  again.  The  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  the 
blood  of  Christ  as  a  seal  of  the  new  covenant,  (Mark 
xiv.  24;  Heb.  viii.  9;  ix.  16;)  and  is  a  pledge  and 
a  prophecy  of  eternal  joys  in  heaven.  Matt.  xxvi. 
29;  1  Cor.  xi.  26. 

The  idea  of  assembling  around  the  Lord's  table 
in  order  to  commune  with,  and  to  show  our  love  for 
each  other,  is  not  the  object  for  which  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  instituted.  It  is  communion  with  Christ, 
and  not  communion  with  Christians.  The  Christian 
comes  to  the  table  as  a  child  born  of  God;  and  only 
as  a  child  he  is  entitled  to  eat.  Thus  the  regenerated 
alone  are  privileged  to  commune.  How  can  the 
unconverted  eat  this  spiritual  bread  and  drink  this 
spiritual  drink  ?  A  saving  knowledge  of  Christ  is 
not  only  a  pre-requisite  to  baptism,  but  essentially 
necessary  to  communion. 

"When  our  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted,  he 
intended  it  either  for  certain  persons  only,  or  for  all 
10 


218  Conversations  on  Baftism. 

persons  without  distinction.  If  it  was  designed  only 
for  certain  persons,  of  a  particular  qualification, 
then  Christ,  in  the  outset,  established  the  practice 
of  restricted  communion.  That  he  did  this  is  cer- 
tain, as  may  be  seen  in  Paul's  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  eleventh  chapter,  where  he  says  that 
Christ,  on  the  night  of  his  betrayal,  set  apart  the 
bread  and  wine  as  a  standing  memorial  of  himself. 
And  who  were  to  be  the  participants  of  these  sym- 
bols? Christ's  true  followers,  and  none  others. 
Listen  to  his  own  words,  in  his  matchless  sermon  of 
love,  addressed  to  those  to  whom  he  administered 
the  supper.  He  said,  on  the  night  of  instituting  the 
supper — 'I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you;'  'My 
peace  I  give  unto  you ;'  'I  have  chosen  you  out  of 
the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you.'  (John 
xiv,  2;  and  xv.  15.)  These  sayings  can  be  applied 
only  to  his  true,  believing  followers,  and  they  indi- 
cate the  wide  difference  between  those  for  whom  the 
supper  was  intended,  and  those  not  qualified  to  be 
its  participants.  To  the  former  Christ  restricted  his 
commemorative  ordinance. 

"  When  he  said,  '  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me' 
—  (1  Cor.  xi.  24) —  he  desired  this  precept  to  be 
obeyed  only  by  those  who  have  faith  to  discern  his 
body  as  the  sacrifice  for  sinners,  and  have  love  for 
him  as  their  Saviour.  None  others  could  properly 
partake  of  his  supper,  for  '  He  that  eateth  and 
drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damna- 
tion to  himself,  not   discerning  the   Lord's  body.' 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  219 

The  partaking  of  these  emblems  is  a  profession 
of  faith  in  Christ  as  having  died  and  risen  for 
the  communicant's  salvation,  and  of  union  with 
him,  and  of  life  from  him.  !Now,  to  profess  all 
of  this  falsely,  '  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body,' 
without  true,  Christian  faith,  is  to  incur  condemna- 
tion, for  to  eat  and  drink  thus  is  to  practice  a  mon- 
strous falsehood,  which  Christ  never  enjoined  upon 
any  individual.  'Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,' 
he  required  of  only  certain  persons  who  could  do  it 
worthily;  and,  therefore,  by  restricting  the  supper 
to  these,  he  instituted  the  practice  of  restricted 
communion." 

M.  But  did  not  the  Saviour  admit  Judas  to 
communion. 

P.  Judas  is  a  great  favorite  of  open  communion- 
ists.  I  don't  know  what  we  should  do  without  him. 
But  "  If  Judas  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  did 
it  in  the  character  of  a  true  disciple,  the  omniscient 
Saviour  alone  perceiving  his  hypocrisy.  But  it  is 
probable,  if  not  certain,  that  he  went  out  to  accom- 
plish the  betrayal  of  Christ  before  the  supper  was 
instituted." 

But  if  it  is  so  very  important,  as  you  say,  to  invite 
all  to  commune  together,  why  did  not  the  Saviour 
invite  all  the  disciples  to  partake  with  him  at  the 
supper?  Only  twelve,  if  we  include  Judas,  were 
wTith  him  then. 

M.  That  does  look  a  little  restricted,  I  must 
confess.     I  can't  answer  your  question. 


220  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

P.  Are  you  aware  that  the  whole  subject  of 
communion  turns  on  regeneration  and  baptism  ? 

31.  I  suppose  it  must;  but  I  am  not  positive. 
"What  say  you  ? 

P.  That  it  is  an  admitted  fact ;  and  it  is  really 
only  necessary  to  determine  what  is  scriptural  con- 
version and  baptism.  All  other  issues  are  foreign 
to  the  subject.  Let  me  furnish  you  a  few  extracts 
from  leading  Pedobaptist  writers  touching  this 
point : 

Mosheim. — In  speaking  of  the  faithful  and  cate- 
chumens in  the  first  century,  Mosheim  says  :  "  The 
former  were  such  as  had  been  solemnly  admitted 
into  the  church  by  baptism ;  and  who  might  be  pre- 
sent at  all  the  parts  of  religious  worship.  The  latter, 
not  yet  having  received  baptism,  were  not  admitted 
to  the  sacred  supper." — Eccl.  Hist,  vol.  i.  p.  69. 
Of  the  third  century  he  says  :  "  Neither  those  doing 
penance,  nor  those  not  yet  baptized,  were  allowed  to 
be  present  at  the  celebration  of  this  ordinance." — 
Vol.  L,  p.  189. 

Neander,  speaking  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
says:  "At  this  celebration  [the  supper],  as  may  be 
easily  concluded,  no  one  could  be  present  who  was 
not  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  incor- 
porated into  it  by  the  rite  of  baptism." — Vol.  i.,  p. 
327. 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  says  : 
"  No  church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  per- 
sons before  they  were   baptized.     Among   all  the 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  221 

absurdities  that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  main- 
tained that  any  person  should  partake  of  the  com- 
munion before  they  were  baptized." 

Peter  King,  Lord  High  Chancellor  of  England, 
in  his  Primitive  Church,  p.  196,  a  work  published 
by  your  [Methodist  Episcopal]  church,  says:  "Bap- 
tism was  always  precedent  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  none  were  admitted  to  receive  the  eucharist  till 
they  were  baptized.  This  is  so  obvious  to  every 
man  that  it  needs  no  proof:  if  any  one  doubts  it,  he 
may  find  it  clearly  asserted  in  the  Second  Apology 
of  Justin  Martyr,  p.  97." 

Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  Miscellaneous  Works,  p. 
510,  says  :  "  It  is  certain  that  Christians  in  general 
have  always  been  spoken  of,  by  the  most  ancient 
fathers,  as  baptized  persons.  And  it  is  also  certain 
that,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  of  primitive  antiquity 
extends,  no  unbaptized  person  received  the  Lord's 
Supper." 

Dr.  Dwight  says:  "It  is  an  indispensable  qualifi- 
cation for  this  ordinance  that  the  candidate  for 
communion  be  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of 
Christ,  in  full  standing.  By  this  I  intend  that  he 
should  have  made  a  public  profession  of  religion, 
and  that  he  should  have  been  baptized." 

The  American  Tract  Society,  in  a  tract  entitled, 
"Shall  I  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,"  thus  lays 
down  the  duty  of  the  pious  inquirer:  "Let  him 
repent  and  believe,  and  come  to  the  table  of  the 
Lord.     All  these  are  alike  duties,  and  to  neglect 


222  Conversations  on  JBafttis?n, 

either  is  to  violate  a  divine  command.  But  they 
are  to  be  done  in  Gospel  order.  Repent  and  believe, 
and  being  baptized,  commemorate  the  dying  love 
of  the  Redeemer. — P.  12.  It  says  again,  (p.  3): 
"  We  have  then  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  all, 
without  exception  or  limitation,  all  who  repent  and 
believe,  and  are  baptized,  and  only  tJiey,  are  fit  sub- 
jects for  the  Lord's  Supper." 

In  a  tract  published  by  the  Congregational  Board 
of  Publication,  entitled,  "  Scriptural  Platform  of 
Church  Government,"  when  discussing  "  the  mate- 
rials of  which  a  church  is  formed,"  it  is  said,  (p.  2) : 
"  As  to'  the  Gospel  church,  it  is  plain  that  it  was 
composed  of  none  but  visible  saints.  No  other  but 
baptized  persons  were  admitted  to  communion  ;  and 
no  adult  persons  but  such  as  professed  repentance 
and  faith  were  admitted  to  baptism,  which  shows 
that  they  were  visible  saints." 

Dr.  Dick  {Presbyterian)  says:  "An  unbaptized  per- 
son should  not  be  permitted  to  partake  of  the 
eucharist." 

Thus,  from  Bible  and  Pedobaptist  testimony, 
regeneration  and  baptism  are  essentially  pre-requi- 
sites  to  communion. 

M.  But  the  Pedobaptists  believe  they  have  been 
baptized. 

P.  But  the  Baptists  deny  it,  and  can  not  substi- 
tute the  Pedobaptists  belief  for  their  own,  nor  give 
up  principles  to  please  men.  "  They  might  as  well 
take  Quakers  to  their  fellowship,  who  reject  both 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  223 

ordinances.  This  would  be  assuming  a  dispensing 
power,  and  claiming  authority  which  does  not  be- 
long to  them.  Would  the  Apostles  have  received 
them?  Would  they  have  authorized  the  churches 
to  receive  unbaptized  believers  to  fellowship?  If 
not,  what  right  have  the  Baptists  to  do  that  which 
the  Apostles  would  have  disallowed?" 

M.  You  say,  then,  that  the  Baptists  believe  that 
conversion  and  baptism  must  precede  communion, 
and  that  baptism  only  is  immersion  ? 

P.  Certainly,  if  I  understand  them.  They  main- 
tain that  regeneration  and  baptism  must  precede 
communion.  "  All  Christendom  admits  that  bap- 
tism precedes  communion.  The  admission  of  an 
unbaptized  person  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is  contrary 
to  the  uniform  practice  of  Christian  churches. 
Justin  Martyr,  in  the  second  century,  declared  its 
lawfulness.  The  same  opinion  has  been  held  and 
maintained  down  to  the  present  time."  But  now 
comes  the  difference  between  us.  We  believe  in 
baptismal  regeneration,  and  that  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling are  baptism;  and  hence,  we  invite  all  to  com- 
munion ;  and  some  of  us  do  not  even  require  these. 
The  Baptists  require  spiritual  regeneration,  and 
maintain  that  immersion  alone  is  baptism :  and 
hence  their  invitation  to  the  Lord's  table  is  confined 
to  such  characters.  They  are  governed  exclusively 
by  the  apostolical  example.  Here  is  the  gist  of  the 
whole  matter  —  the  cause  of  our  difference. 

Where  is  their  illiberality  and  injustice?     They 


224  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

have  the  same  right  to  believe  that  immersion  is 
baptism  as  we  have  that  sprinkling  is  baptism. 
They  invite  the  baptized,  and  we  invite  those  whom 
we  call  baptized.  How  can  the  Baptists  do  other- 
wise and  be  consistent?  Thus,  if  we  are  resolved 
to  oppose  their  close  communion,  we  must  attack 
them  on  baptism ;  for  it  is  really  close  baptism,  and 
not  close  communion. 

Said  a  prominent  and  intelligent  man,  who  had 
been  converted  in  a  Baptist  meeting : 

"I  would  join  the  Baptist  church  to-day,  Elder, 
if  I  could  believe  in  your  close  communion." 

"Well,"  replied  the  minister,  "here  is  a  little 
book  on  communion,  won't  you  take  and  read  the 
Bible  references  in  it?" 

"  I  have  no  objection." 

So  he  took  the  book,  read  it,  and  examined  the 
Bible  carefully.  A  few  days  afterwards  he  went  to 
see  the  minister  again,  his  face  beaming,  and  his 
heart  so  full  that  he  at  once  exclaimed  : 

"Elder,  I'm  all  right  now.  I  see  it's  close  bap- 
tism, and  not  close  communion.  Now  I  am  ready 
to  be  baptized  and  join  the  church,  if  you  will  only 
receive  me." 

M.  Close  baptism !  That's  something  new  to 
me,  brother  C.  And  yet  it  looks  like  it.  It  does 
seem,  from  what  you  have  said,  that  only  those  who 
are  born  again  and  baptized  have  the  right  to  come 
to  the  Lord's  table. 

P.     There  is  no  doubt  of  it.     And  if  we  allow  the 


Thirteenth  Conversation.  225 

un regenerate  and  11  n baptized  to  commune,  we  ought 
not  to  expect  the  Baptists  to  commune  with  us. 
They  have  as  much  right  to  say  who  are  baptized, 
and  to  regulate  their  own  affairs,  as  we  have. 

Besides,  there  are  thousands  in  our  churches  who 
have  neither  been  regenerated  nor  baptized.  And, 
again,  there  are  churches  that  believe  in  baptismal 
regeneration,  deny  the  divinity  and  expiatory  sacri- 
fice of  Christ,  the  new  birth,  and  baptism,  besides 
holding  other  unscriptural  doctrines.  With  such 
views,  how  can,  they  be  invited  to  the  Lord's  table, 
notwithstanding  their  profession  and  relation  ? 

M.  I  do  not  see  how  they  can,  with  any  degree 
of  consistency. 

P.  In  your  church,  I  believe,  "  seekers"  are 
invited  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

M.  Yes ;  we  invite  them  to  the  Lord's  table  as 
a  means  of  grace.  Our  Discipline  says : — "  There  is 
only  one  condition  previously  required  of  those  who 
desire  admission  into  these  societies,  '  a  desire  to  flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  to  be  saved  from  their  sins.' 
It  is  expected  of  all  who  continue  in  these  societies, 
that  they  should  continue  to  evidence  their  desire  of  sal- 
vation, by  attending  to  all  the  ordinances  of  God : 
such  are  the  public  worship  of  God,  the  ministry  of 
the  Word,  *  *  *  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord." — 
P.  31  and  32. 

P.  Thus,  you  admit  the  unregenerate  and  un- 
baptized  to  communion.  Now,  if  there  were  no 
other  reason,  the  practice  of  your  church  absolutely 
10* 


226  C 07iv  ers  at  ions  on  Baptism, 

excludes  from  your  table  all  those  who  believe  that 
none  but  the  regenerate  and  baptized  have  the  right 
to  commune.  You  make  it  close  communion.  You 
exclude  the  Baptists.  "What  does  the  boasting  liber- 
ality of  your  ministers  amount  to?  If  I  invite  my 
neighbor  to  communion  on  terms  which  I  know  he 
can  not  comply  with,  I  not  only  virtually  close  the 
door  against  him,  but  my  invitation  is  a  solemn 
mockery.  Thus,  you  see,  we  are  the  inventors  of  close 
communion.  We  put  up  bars  to  the  Lord's  table. 
And  yet  we  try  to  make  the  people  believe  we  are 
very  liberal. 

M.  We  the  inventors  of  close  communion ! 
[Scratching  his  head  in  apparent  confusion.]  We 
exclude  the  Baptists,  and  invite  them  to  commune 
with  the  unregenerate  and  unbaptized !  Unpleasant 
as  it  is,  I  must  admit  it.  And  yet  we  censure  the 
Baptists  because  they  wont  invite  the  unconverted 
and  unbaptized  members  of  our  societies  to  com- 
munion !     How  inconsistent  we  are. 

P.  There  is  no  doubt  of  that.  The  idea  of 
"  close  communion,"  as  we  apply  it  to  the  Baptists, 
would  never  have  been  thought  of,  if  "  open  com- 
munion "  had  not  been  invented  by  Pedobaptists. 
Instead  of  being  close  communion,  it  is  free  to  all 
who  obey  the  divine  requirement:  it  is  the  only 
communion  authorized  by  the  Bible.  "  Open  com- 
munion," as  practiced  by  us,  is  the  worst  kind  of 
close  communion;  for,  while  it  opens  the  door  to 
the  unconverted,   and  unbaptized,  etc.,  it  virtually 


Thirteenth  Conversation*  227 

closes  it  against  those  who  have  obeyed  the  Scriptu- 
ral requisition  !  Why  can  not  people  be  more  con- 
sistent, and  call  things  by  their  right  names!  And 
yet,  I  don't  know  but  what  "open  communion"  is 
an  appropriate  name  after  all;  for  it  is  certainly 
open  to  fundamental  objections,  and  so  loose,  that  it  well 
deserves  the  name  of  loose  communion. 

What  is  your  next  objection  to  the  Baptists? 

31.  That  they  do  not  recognize  members  of  other 
churches  as  Christians. 

P.  That  is  a  common  objection  with  us,  and 
never  was  there  one  more  unjust  and  unchristian. 
It  is  a  charge  made  by  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  and  sung 
in  varying  changes  by  Presbyterians,  Congregational- 
ists,  and  Methodists.  Before  I  reply  to  it,  let  me 
relate  an  incident : 

Some  years  ago  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  the 
founder  of  the  New  School  Presbyterians,  visited 
Peoria,  TIL,  before  there  was  any  New  School  Pres- 
byterian church  organized  there.  Some  of  the  Old 
School  Presbyterian  members  were  very  anxious  to 
hear  Mr.  Barnes  preach;  but  they  could  not  con- 
sistently ask  him  to  preach  in  their  church,  because 
the  Old  School  body  disfellowshiped  or  excommu- 
nicated the  New  School  on  account  of  false  doctrines. 
So  these  Old  School  Presbyterians  in  Peoria  went 
to  the  pastor  of  the  Baptist  church,  and  asked  him 
to  invite  Mr.  Barnes  to  preach  in  his  church,  so 
that  thev  could  come  and  hear  him.  The  Baptist 
pastor,  being  anxious  to  hear  Mr.  Barnes,  was  very 


228  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

glad  to  do  so;  so  the  invitation  was  given,  and 
accepted. 

M.  The  Baptists  showed  a  more  liberal  and 
Christian  spirit  than  the  Old  School  Presbyterians. 

P.  Yes;  and  a  kinder  spirit  than  Mr.  Barnes 
has  since  manifested,  for  he  has  published  a  very 
hitter  and  bigoted  pamphlet  against  the  Baptists, 
entitled  "  Exclusivism  ;"  in  answer  to  which  a  Bap- 
tist minister,  Rev.  J.  Wheaton  Smith,  D.D.,  of 
Philadelphia,  has  printed  an  eloquent  reply,  which 
has  come  into  my  hands  since  our  investigations 
commenced.  I  will  let  the  Baptist  answer  Mr. 
Barnes  and  yourself. 

"  But  do  we  thus  cast  out  our  brethren  ?"  [uncbris- 
tianize  them],  says  he.  "  Our  denominational  liter- 
ature is  before  you  ;  in  which  of  our  writings  do  you 
find  it?  Our  churches  abound  in  this  community 
and  around  it  —  which  of  them  holds  it?  Our  minis- 
ters mingle  freely  with  your  own  —  which  of  them 
teaches  or  believes  it  ?  Our  laymen  are  associated 
with  j-ours,  they  live  in  the  same  streets,  worship 
often  at  the  same  altars,  strike  hands  in  the  same 
works  of  love  —  which  of  them  treats  his  brother 
of  a  different  denomination  as  an  outcast  from 
Christ  ?  If  such  a  man  can  be  found,  I  would  almost 
consent  to  give  another  Baptist  to  the  whipping- 
post. If  Ave  have  such  a  minister,  let  him  hear  the 
words  which  were  rung  in  the  ears  of  our  first 
preacher  at  Haverhill,  warning  him  i  off  of  God's 
earth!'     If  we  have  one  such  church,  nail  up  the 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  229 

doors  of  its  meeting-house,  as  the  Pedobaptist 
authorities  of  New  England  nailed  up  the  doors  of 
our  first  meeting-house  in  Boston.  But,  sir,  on  this 
score  at  least,  we  should  be  safe  from  persecution. 
Born  and  bred  among  Baptists,  I  never  met  with 
one  who  entertained  such  views,  or  knew  before 
that  we  were  suspected  of  holding  them." 

M.  Well,  the  Baptists  ought  to  know  best  what 
they  believe,  and  I  am  willing  to  give  them  the 
benefit  of  their  denial.  But,  somehow,  I  don't  feel 
yet  altogether  right  about  it. 

P.  I  know  it  is  hard  to  get  the  old  leaven  of 
opposition  to  the  Baptists  cast  out  of  our  hearts ; 
but  what  has  feeling  to  do  with  a  question  of  princi- 
ple? But  let  us  hear  the  Baptists  still  further  in 
their  denial  of  unchristianiziug  other  denominations. 
Says  another : 

"  The  charge  is  groundless  and  wicked.  We 
have  already  shown  why  the  Baptists  do  not  com- 
mune with  open  commuuionists.  We  admit  them 
to  be  Christians,  but  not  a  Christian  church  in  Gos- 
pel order.  We  may  extend  to  them  the  hand  of 
Christian  fellowship,  but  not  the  hand  of  church 
fellowship.  This  practice,  if  rightly  understood,  is 
not  uncharitable.  Some  Pedobaptists  will  not  com- 
mune with  unbaptized  persons,  though  they  believe 
them  Christians.  In  this  we  perfectly  agree.  We 
are  even  more  liberal  than  the}',  because  we  will 
commune  with  all  we  baptize  into  the  fellowship  of 
the  church,  but  they  will  not — they  baptize  multi- 


230  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

tudes  whom  they  never  admit  to  the  Lord's  table. 
Tliey  are,  therefore,  closer  than  Baptists." 

M.  "Well,  I  declare,  brother  E.,  that  is  com- 
pletely turning  the  table  on  us.  If  you  keep  on 
this  way,  I  rather  think  we  shall  find  that  it  is  our 
ox  that  has  been  goring  the  Baptists ! 

P.  Yes,  and  that  alters  the  case  materially.  But, 
"  the  Baptists,  in  declining  to  extend  an  invitation 
to  the  Lord's  table,  do  not  cast  an  imputation  upon 
the  Christian  character  of  their  brethren.  Chris- 
tian character  is  not  the  only  pre-requisite  to  the 
Supper:  the  divine  rule  requires  also  scriptural  bap- 
tism, and  consistent  church  membership.  The  laws 
of  this  country,  for  example,  do  not  admit  the 
foreigner  to  the  right  of  citizenship  until  he  has 
passed  through  the  legal  process  of  naturalization, 
however  pure  may  be  his  intentions,  or  eminent  his 
virtues.  This  restriction,  however,  does  not  im- 
peach his  character;  for  the  rights  of  the  citizen 
are  freely  offered  him,  if  he  will  pass  through  the 
preliminary  process.  Was  the  Jew  uncharitable 
when,  in  accordance  with  the  divine  law,  he  invited 
none  but  the  circumcised  to  the  Passover?  Even 
Enoch,  Melchisedec,  and  Job,  had  they  been  present, 
could  not  have  partaken,  unless  first  circumcised. 
Was  it  a  want  of  charity  in  Christ,  when,  at  the 
institution  of  the  Supper,  he  did  not  invite  the4  above 
-Q.VQ  hundred  brethren,'  nor  Lazarus,  nor  the  Marys, 
nor  even  his  own  mother?  Certainly  this  was  not 
an  impeachment  of  their  Christian  character,  but  an 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  231 

exact  observance  of  the  law  of  the  ordinance;  for 
they  were  not  then,  like  the  Apostles,  united  with 
Christ  in  the  peculiar  fellowship  of  a  church." 

Are  you  aware  that  "no  member  of  a  Baptist 
church  can  claim  it  as  a  right  to  commune  with  any 
other  Baptist  church?" 

M.     No.     It  is  altogether  new  to  me. 

P.  But  so  it  is.  They  contend  that  "  every 
church  is  an  independent  body;  which  fact  forever 
settles  the  question,  that  intercommunion  between 
the  members  of  Baptist  churches  is  based  on  courtesy v 
and  not  on  right.  If  a  church  is  independent,  how 
can  the  members  of  another  church  interfere  with  its 
action?  How  can  they  claim  any  thing  of  it  on  the 
ground  of  right?  A  church  would  exemplify  a  rare 
independence,  if  those  not  belonging  to  it  could 
rightfully  demand  seats  in  it  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord.  Every  church,  being  independent,  must  act 
for  itself;  and  is,  therefore,  as  evidently  bound  to 
maintain  the  ordinances  of  Christ  in  their  purity,  as 
if  there  were  no  other  church  under  heaven.  Every 
Baptist  feels  that  he  is  a  sovereign  citizen  of  the 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ.  Every  Baptist  church  is 
a  sovereign  democracy,  on  which  devolves  the  duty 
of  executing  the  laws  of  Christ,  and  of  preserving 
in  their  primitive  purity  and  integrity  the  ordinances 
of  the  Gospel." 

31.  That  is  a  high  claim  you  are  putting  in  for 
the  Baptists.  A  democracy  is  well  enough  for  the 
state,  but  for  the  church  —  I  don't  know  about  that. 


232  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

P.  Is  not  that  because  vou  have  been  trained  to 
another  way  of  thinking  by  your  preachers?  But 
to  proceed.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  church  ordi- 
nance. A  church  of  Jesus  Christ  has  within  itself 
the  right  to  guard  and  maintain  the  purity  of  the 
ordinances;  to  require  conformity  to  the  Saviour's 
requisition  and  apostolical  example.  The  latter  is 
already  seen  from  Acts  ii.  41,  42.  After  preaching 
to  the  multitude,  Peter  cried  out,  "Repent  and  be 
converted,"  etc.  "Then  they  that  gladly  received 
his  word  were  baptized.  *  *  *  And  they  con- 
tinued steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayer."  Thus  repent- 
ance and  conversion  preceded  baptism,  and  baptism 
communion.  This  example  completely  condemns 
all  contrary  practices.  The  church  has  the  right  to 
say  who  have  or  have  not  obeyed  the  divine  require- 
ment. All  churches  say  who  shall  or  shall  not  com- 
mune. "  When  Christians  are  associated  together 
in  a  church  state,  under  a  definite  creed,  communion 
in  the  sacraments  involves  an  approbation  of  the 
principles  of  that  creed;  and  that,  as  the  church  is 
invested  with  authority,  which  she  is  bound  to  exer- 
cise, to  keep  the  ordinances  pure  and  entire,  sacra- 
mental communion  is  not  to  be  extended  to  those 
who  do  not  approve  the  principles  of  the  particular 
church,  or  submit  themselves  to  her  authority." 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  a  Pedobaptist. 

Here  are  two  more  extracts  from  Pedobaptists : 
"  The  ruling  officers  of  a  particular  congregation 


Thirteejtth  Conversation,  233 

Lave  power  authoritatively  to  suspend  from  the 
Lord's  table  a  person  not  yet  cast  out  of  the  church  : 

"  First  Because  those  who  have  authority  to  j  udge 
of,  and  admit,  such  as  are  fit  to  receive  the  sacra- 
ment, have  authority  to  keep  back  such  as  shall  be 
found  unworthy. 

"  Second.  Because  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  business  of 
ordinary  practice  belonging  to  that  congregation." 
—  Presbyterian  Form  of  Church  Government,  West- 
minster Assembly. 

"By  the  constitution  of  the  Congregational 
churches,  no  persons  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  but  such  as  have  previously  assented  to  the 
covenant  of  a  particular  church,  and  have  assumed 
the  responsibilities  of  such  covenant.  Without  doubt 
every  sincere  follower  of  Christ  has  a  right  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  Lord's  Supper,  nor  can  that  right  be 
justly  overlooked.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
right  of  judging  of  the  marks  of  that  sincerity  rests 
with  the  particular  church,  and  its  members  are 
bound  to  exercise  it  with  caution  and  faithfulness," 
etc. —  Upharn  on  Constitution  of  Congregational  Churches, 

233. 

That   the  Apostle   Paul   exercised   the  right  of 

directing  the  church  in  regard  to  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  evident  from  1  Cor.  v.  11 ; 
Phil.  iii.  17;  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  9.  This  authority  the 
Apostle  derives  from  his  inspiration ;  and  hence, 
apostolic  example  has  the  same  binding  force  as  a 
positive   precept:   thus   churches   are  obligated   to 


234  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

keep  the  ordinances  as  received.  1  Cor.  xi.  2 ;  23, 
24:  2  Thess.  ii.  15:  1  Cor.  iv.  1  and  17;  xiv.  37; 
xvi.  1 :   2  Cor.  xiii.  10. 

Churches  are  called  to  exercise  disciplinary  powers 
over  their  members.  Matt,  xviii.  17  :  1  Cor.  v.  1-7; 
and  vi.  4 :  2  Cor.  ii.  6 — 10.  A  church  is  superior 
to  an  individual,  and  has  the  right  to  enforce  the 
Gospel  ordinances  as  it  understands  them.  And 
thus,  churches  are  the  guardians  of  order  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Gospel. 

Besides,  ministers  have  a  personal  responsibility. 
Matt,  xviii.  19  :  Acts  viii.  37 ;  x.  47,  48.  A  minis- 
ter violates  his  commission  by  administering  ordi- 
nances to  those  he  thinks  unqualified.  He  must  be 
the  judge  of  qualification;  and  require  baptism 
before  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Xo  one  has  the  right  to  demand  communion  of 
any  church  in  violation  of  its  doctrines  and  rules  of 
church  order.     It  is  manifestly  unjust  for  an  indivi- 
dual holding  doctrines  and  practices  opposed  to  a 
church,  to  ask  for  communion  in  that  church.     Is 
he  to  override  its  rules  and  order,  and  demand  of 
those  who  believe  baptism  a  pre-requisite  to  commu- 
nion, to  admit  the  unbaptized  to  the  Lord's  table? 
Has  not  the  church  and  administrator  a  conscience  in 
this  matter  as  well  as  the  applicant?     If  a  church 
has  not  the  right  to  guard  the  Lord's  table,  then  all, 
indiscriminately,   have   the    right    to    communion, 
whether  Catholic  or  Presbyterian,  Congregationalist 
or  Unitarian,  Methodist  or  Universalist,  Baptist  or 


Thirteenth  Co?iversation.  235 

Quaker.  If  a  church  has  the  rigid  to  reject  one,  it 
has  the  right  to  reject  more.  And  if  it  rejects  hut 
one,  it  is  a  close  communion  church. 

There  is  oue  thins:  more  I  wish  to  mention  in  con- 
nection  here.  Open  communion  subverts  all  church 
order,  and  destroys  the  effect  of  church  discipline.  For 
instance,  you  disfellowship  a  member  of  your  church 
for  heresy,  or  disobedience  to  the  order  of  your 
church  polity:  afterwards,  he  joins  another  church, 
yet  still  retaining  the  same  opinions  and  practices 
for  which  he  was  excommunicated.  Then,  at  your 
communion  season,  on  an  invitation  given  to  mem- 
bers in  good  standing  in  your  sister  churches,  he 
comes  and  partakes  with  you  at  the  Lord's  Supper; 
and  you  can  not  help  yourselves.  I  have  heard  of 
such  cases.  I  need  not  ask,  how  much  love  and 
Christian  fellowship  there  is  in  that?  nor  what  your 
feelings  would  be,  were  you  to  kneel  by  his  side? 

M.  That  may  all  be  true;  but  still  I  should  like 
to  know  why,  as  individuals,  we  have  not  the  right 
to  judge  of  the  terms  of  communion  ourselves?  If 
I  am  sincere,  and  satisfied  in  my  own  mind  that  I 
ought  to  go  to  the  Lord's  table  in  any  church,  who 
has  the  right  to  prevent  me?  If  an  individual  has 
not  the  right  to  determine  the  terms  of  communion, 
pray  who  has?  Does  not  the  Baptist's  argument 
destroy  a  man's  liberty  of  conscience? 

P.  You  forget  yourself,  my  friend.  Did  you  not 
say  in  the  opening  of  our  Conversations  that  sincerity 


236  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

never  made  a  truth,  nor  justified  a  man  in  believing 
an  error? 

M.     Yes;  but  that  referred  to  baptism. 

P.  Can  sincerity  make  a  wrong  right  in  commu- 
nion, and  not  in  baptism  ?  "  The  apology  offered  for 
those  in  error,  '  that  they  are  sincere,'  is  a  flimsy 
concern.  If  I  pass  spurious  money  to  you,  both  of 
us  thinking  sincerely  that  it  is  genuine,  does  our 
sincerity  make  it  genuine?  If  we  know  it  to  be 
spurious,  shall  we  pass  it  to  others,  and  encourage 
them  to  keep  it  in  circulation,  because  they  are  sin- 
cere in  their  estimate  of  it?  To  trifle  with  —  to 
abuse  thus  the  sincerity  of  others,  would  not  make 
the  coin  good,  but  would  bring  upon  ourselves  a 
merited  penalty.  Are  you  willing  to  apologize  for 
the  bloody  crimes  of  Saul,  because  he  was  sincere 
in  murdering  Christians?  "Will  not  the  sincerity 
that  justifies  an  error  in  baptism  also  justify  the 
errors  of  Roman  Catholics  and  Mahommedans  ? 
Away  with  this  substitution  of  sincerity  for  right, 
for  Scripture !  If  it  is  good  for  any  thing  —  if  it 
can  make  wrong  right,  then  the  sincere  Pagans  are 
rivals  of  Christians.  It  is  worse  than  folly  to  say 
that  because  one  who  has  been  sprinkled  or  signed 
with  the  cross  thinks  he  is  baptized,  therefore  he  is 
baptized.  Apply  such  reasoning  as  this  to  the  com- 
mon affairs  of  life,  and  error,  assuming  the  dignity 
of  truth,  would  produce  the  most  disastrous  results. 
To  avoid  such  a  state  of  things,  we  are  strictly 
taught  to  adhere  solely  to  the  Scriptures,  and  not  to 


Thirteenth  Conversation,  237 

receive  for  doctrines  the  teachings  of  mere  men. 
'  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony.'  " 

M.  "Well,  then,  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony. 
Does  not  the  Bible  say,  "  Let  a  man  examine 
himself?" 

P.  ~No  man  has  the  liberty  of  changing  the  Bible 
law  governing  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  you  do  not 
quote  the  passage  fairly,  and  give  its  connection.  It 
is  a  garbled  extract.  But  let  us  look  at  it.  Why  is 
a  man  to  examine  himself?  Certainly  not  to  deter- 
mine the  law  or  the  terms  of  the  Supper;  that 
belongs  to  Christ,  and  those  terms  he  has  revealed 
in  his  Word,  clearly  and  explicitly.  Here  is  the 
apostolic  precedent  and  example  :  "  Then  they  that 
gladly  received  His  word  were  baptized ;  and  the  same 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thou- 
sand souls.  And  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
Ajiostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  op 
bread,  and  in  prayers.9' — Acts  ii.  41,  42.  It  is  the 
duty  of  a  man  to  examine  his  own  heart  —  to  see 
whether  he  is  a  child  of  God,  and  to  be  satisfied 
that  he  "  discerns  the  Lord's  body  "  in  the  elements 
of  the  Supper,  having  conformed  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  Bible  as  a  Christian,  so  that  he  eat  and 
drink  not  "unworthily;"  for  "  whosoever  shall  eat 
this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord,  un- 
worthily, shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord."— 1  Cor.  xi.  27. 

And  thus,  to  avoid  this  fearful  result,  the  Apostle 
gives  this  serious  caution  :   "  But  let  a  man  examine 


238  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink 
of  that  cup;  for  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  un- 
worthily, eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  [condem- 
nation] to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body.''' — 
1  Cor.  xi.  28,  29 : — This  condemnation  being  exclu- 
sively the  result  of  the  individual  failing  to  discern 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper. 

This,  therefore,  we  repeat,  is  what  a  man  has  to 
do  before  coming  to  the  Lord's  table  :  to  see  whether 
he  has  conformed  to  the  requirements  of  God's 
word  as  a  Christian,  and  thus,  in  eating,  be  enabled 
spiritually  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  and  not  to  make 
for  himself  terms  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Those  drink  unworthily  who  have  not  complied 
with  the  scriptural  requisition;  who,  not  being  born 
again,  can  not  discern  the  Lord's  body,  and  enter 
into  communion  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
for  "  he  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my 
blood,"  says  Jesus,  "  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him." 

And  now,  as  it  is  late,  let  us  defer  further  investi- 
gation until  to-morrow  evening,  for  there  is  much 
yet  to  be  said  in  our  examination  of  the  Baptists. 

M.  Such  being  the  case,  we  had  better  do  so; 
but  I  hardly  know  how  to  wait  with  patience. 


■      p      ii      in      i  a      11      it      n      ii       11      ii      11      m      11 


ft     n      «r    n      t  i      it     -1  r   "it  t— j  i      i  f      yK  °^q- 


r  OURTEENTH 


P 


ONYERSATION, 


Z>fce  Baptists  Examined — {Continued.} 


Si^i 

["^/Sis 

N"  introducing  the  evening's  Conversation 
Mr.  E.  said : 

"Are  you  aware, brother  C,  what  we 
require  of  the  Baptists  in  demanding  open 
communion  ?" 

Methodist.  I  am  not  aware  that  we  ask  of  them 
more  than  we  do  of  others. 

Presbyterian.  Yes,  far  more.  Said  a  Baptist 
to  an  open  communionist :  "  You  ask  me  to  do 
what  you  would  not  do  yourself  if  you  were  in  my 
place." 

"  How  so  ?"  inquired  the  Free  Will. 
"You  believe  that  the  baptized  only  have  the 
right  to  commune." 
"  Certainly  I  do." 

"  So  do  I.  And  yet  you  ask  me  to  invite  the 
unbaptized  to  the  Lord's  table,  which  I  should  do, 


240  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

according  to  your  own  definition  of  baptism,  if  I 
were  to  give  a  general  invitation  to  communion. 
Thus  you  are  offended  at  me  because  I  will  not  ask 
you  to  do  that  which  I  would  not  do  if  I  were  in 
your  place,  and  which  you  would  not  do  if  you  were 
in  my  place." 

31.  Can  any  one,  believing  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary to  communion,  and  that  nothing  is  baptism  but 
immersion,  be  so  inconsistent  as  that  ? 

P.  Yes,  some  are  just  so  inconsistent.  Holding 
that  baptism  is  a  pre-requisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  that  nothing  is  baptism  but  immersion,  yet  they 
invite  what  the  Greek  Church  calls  sprinkled  Chris- 
tians to  the  Lord's  table ;  thus  saying  to  the  world 
that  the  unbaptized  have  the  right  to  partake  of  the 
Supper,  and  that  baptism  is  not  essential  to  com- 
munion. 

What  we  Pedobaptists  ask  of  the  Baptists  is,  to 
admit  unregenerate  and  unbaptized  persons  to  the 
Lord's  table,  and  to  acknowledge  as  scriptural  our 
sprinkling.  The  fact  is,  and  we  may  as  well  own  it, 
their  restricted  communion  always  denies  and  proclaims 
against  the  validity  of  our  sprinkling. 

M.  I  see  it  now.  And  that  may  be  one  reason 
why  some  of  our  ministers  seem  so  anxious  to 
destroy  it. 

P.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  If  we  can  induce  the 
Baptists  to  admit  us  to  the  Lord's  table,  we  carry  our 
point ;  and  get  them  to  acknowledge  our  sprinkling 
as   baptism,   even   infant    sprinkling,   which    they 


Fourteenth  Conversation,  241 

believe  to  be  a  pernicious  institution;  and  thus  to 
abandon  the  doctrine  that  immersion  is  exclusively 
baptism. 

M.  And  if  they  come  and  commune  with  us  it 
amounts  to  the  same  thins;.  It  is  a  master-stroke 
of  policy.  But  now,  I  can  not  see  how  a  Baptist 
can  be  consistent  and  commune  with  us.  We  ou^ht 
not  to  expect  it. 

P.  Of  course  not.  It  is  an  insult  to  ask  them  to 
do  that  to  which  they  are  conscientiously  opposed. 
We  should  be  very  indignant  if  a  Baptist  were  to 
ask  us  to  violate  our  articles  of  faith  and  belief  of 
the  truth.  And  yet  we  ask  all  this  of  the  Baptists, 
when  we  invite  them  to  commune  with  Pedobap- 
tists.  We  may  be  sincere,  but  we  are  very  incon- 
sistent. We  persist  in  our  endeavors  to  thrust  our- 
selves into  the  family,  regardless  of  all  family 
regulations.  We  try  to  excite  the  public  prejudice 
against  them  by  our  repeated  invitations,  when  we 
know  that  their  principles  will  not  allow  them  to 
commune  with  us.  I  will  not  say  that  there  was 
any  intention  of  wrong,  but  I  have  known  cases 
where  Baptists  attending  Pedobaptist  meetings  have 
been  particularly  invited  to  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
"  our  Baptist  brethren."  Where  is  our  Christian 
courtesy?  We  denounce  them  in  terms  which 
ought  to  make  us  blush :  "  You're  bigoted  and 
intolerant,"  cries  one :  "  You're  ignorant  and  sel- 
fish," says  another :  "  You  think  yourselves  better 
than  other  Christians,"  cries  the  third :  "  You  are 

XI 


242  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

an  nnbaptized  people,  and  yet  think  more  of  baptism 
than  Christ  and  his  Apostles  did,"  writes  a  fourth: 
and,  "  You're  an  impolite  and  uncourteous  sect," 
cries  a  fifth.  And  then,  after  all  this  abuse,  we  say: 
"  Come,  dear  Baptist  brethren,  this  close  com- 
munion is  all  wrong:  please  admit  us  to  your 
table." 

I  saw  a  printed  letter  from  one  who  professes  to 
be  a  liberal  Christian,  in  which  he  boasted  that  he 
communed  without  invitation  in  a  Baptist  church, 
knowing  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  an  intruder. 
There  is  Christian  courtesy  and  union!  There's  a 
fine  specimen  of  a  high-toned  Christian  gentleman 
of  liberal  views,  who  boasts  of  his  superiority  to  the 
Baptists ! 

M.  That  is  equal  to  the  man  you  mentioned  who 
published  a  pamphlet  on  Christian  Unity,  in  which 
he  declared  the  Baptists  to  be  the  greatest  bigots  in 
Christendom. 

P.  Here  is  another  specimen  of  liberal  Christi- 
anity by  a  Presbyterian,  taken  from  that  gem  of  a 
little  book  published  by  the  Presbyterians,  "  Bible 
Baptism."  In  answer  to  the  question,  "If  persons 
that  have  been  immersed  are  not  baptized  with  a 
Bible  baptism  [Baptists],  ought  we  to  allow  them 
to  come  with  us  to  the  communion  table  ?"  he 
replies,  "By  all  means,  *  *  *  for  they  really 
think  that  they  have  been  baptized.  It  would  be 
very  uncharitable  and  cruel  to  treat  them  as  unbap- 
tized.     *     *     *     They  by  no  means  intend  to  reject 


Fourteenth  Conversation,  243 

baptism.  Indeed,  they  think  a  great  deal  too  much 
of  it,  a  great  deal  more  than  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
did.  *  *  *  As  they  are  honest  in  their  views, 
no  doubt  Christ  accepts  their  baptism  as  real,  and 
we  ought  to  do  the  same."  In  another  place  he 
tells  us  that  immersion  is  a  "  sectarian  baptism," 
and  here  he  tells  us  that  the  Baptists  are  not  bap- 
tized with  a  Bible  baptism,  although  they  think  they 
are  —  poor,  deluded  people,  thinking  more  of  bap- 
tism than  Christ  and  the  Apostles  did ;  but  because 
they  are  honest  and  sincere  in  their  ignorance,  not 
knowing  any  better,  having  not  yet  been  brought 
into  Presbyterian  light  and  liberty,  therefore  he 
would  invite  them  to  the  Presbyterian  table.  He 
insults  them,  and  then  condescendingly  invites  them 
to  commune  w7ith  him,  a  liberal  minded,  Bible 
baptized  Presbyterian.  And  then  he  tells  us  that 
"  no  doubt  Christ  accepts  their  baptism  as  real." 

31.  If  it's  not  Bible  baptism,  it  is  no  baptism. 
Who  gave  him  authority  to  speak  for  Jesus  in  this 
matter?  —  to  say  that  he  accepts  a  fiction  as  a  truth? 

P.  It  is  an  assumption  of  his  own.  It  is  an 
insult  to  the  Saviour  to  say  that  he  accepts  a  secta- 
rian and  unscriptural  baptism  as  the  thing  which  he 
required  —  as  real.  But  not  satisfied  with  this,  the 
writer  gives  another  "  fling "  at  the  Baptists.  He 
says:  "Rejoice,  my  young  friend,  in  the  thought 
that  you  belong  to  a  church,  which,  in  spreading  the 
table  of  the  Lord,  can  invite   to  it  all  professing 


244  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Christians,  whatever  may  be  the  form  of  their  bap- 
tism. " 

M.  He  can't  be  serious.  "All  professing  Chris- 
tians." Why,  the  Presbyterians  don't  invite  "all 
professing  Christians."  Besides,  they  won't  allow 
their  own  "young  Christians"  to  come  to  their  table 
until  the  ruling  elders  see  proper.  He  can  not  be 
posted  up  in  his  own  Confession  of  Faith.  But  I 
will  give  him  credit  for  a  larger  charity  for  the 
ignorant  Baptists  than  for  his  own  young  Christians. 

P.  Here  is  another  specimen  of  "  liberal  Chris- 
tianity," which  I  cut  from  a  union  paper: 

"  The  rite  of  baptism  needs  to  be  understood  in 
Episcopal  and  in  Baptist  branches  of  the  church. 
He  who  makes  it  a  saving  ordinance,  yea,  a  regen- 
erative one,  must  go  to  Rome,  where  such  things 
are  believed,  and  not  stay  in  Protestantism,  that 
counts  every  man  a  member  of  Christ  who  has  put 
on  Christ.  This  ordinance  needs  no  degradation, 
but  it  must  be  taught  that  he  who  builds  up  a 
Baptist  church  over  against  the  Church  of  Christ, 
belongs  to  Rome.  Close  communion  must  yield, 
and  the  exclusive  titleship  to  favoritism  with  Jesus 
must  give  way.  These  things  will  lead  to  schism. 
Already  we  hear  of  a  large  number  of  leading  Bap- 
tist divines  that  are  convinced  that  the  time  has 
come  to  move.  The  best  method  is  the  only  thing 
to  fix  upon." 

In  this  extract  the  writer  makes  three  distinct 
charges  against  the  Baptists,  every  one  of  which  is 


Fourteenth  Conversation.  245 

an  unmitigated  slander :  1st.  He  charges  the  Bap- 
tists with  making  baptism  a  saving  ordinance.  2nd. 
He  charges  them  with  building  up  a  Baptist  church 
over  against  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  that  they 
belong  to  Borne.  3rd.  He  charges  them  with  claim- 
ing exclusive  titleship  to  favoritism  with  Jesus. 
And  yet  the  author  boasts  of  liberal  views,  and 
professes  to  be  governed  by  an  enlarged  charity  — 
the  advocate  of  a  theory  far  higher  and  broader 
than  the  Baptists.  And  "  these  things  will  lead  to 
schism,'''  says  he  ;  no  doubt  rejoicing  at  the  prospect 
while  his  pen  was  writing  about  Christian  union! 

31.  I  suppose  the  "  wish  was  father  to  the 
thought."  I  pity  the  "leading  Baptist  divines" 
who  can  not  see  through  that  flimsy  web. 

P.  I  will  give  you  another  incident,  related  to 
me  by  a  Baptist  minister : 

"  In  a  certain  town  in  Blinois  a  Congregational 
deacon  had  an  only  daughter,  who  had  been  con- 
verted in  the  Baptist  meeting,  and  desired  to  unite 
with  the  Baptist  church.  Her  father  so  strongly 
opposed  her  wishes  that  he  told  her  he  would  rather 
follow  her  to  her  grave,  than  see  her  unite  with  the 
Baptists.  He  told  one  of  the  Baptist  members  also 
that  he  had  said  this  to  his  daughter,  and  the  Bap- 
tist had  informed  me  of  it.  In  less  than  a  month 
after  this  the  deacon  was  present  at  our  communion 
season.  When  I  was  about  to  commence  the 
administration    of   the    ordinance,    he    arose    and 


246  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

announced  his  intention  of  communing  with  us  that 
day,  if  there  was  no  objection. 

"  I  remarked  to  the  congregation  that  it  was  well 
known  that  this  was  the  Lord's  ordinance  and  the 
Lord's  table,  and  not  ours.  If  it  were  ours  we  could 
make  such  regulations  as  we  chose ;  but  as  it  was 
the  Lord's,  and  not  ours,  we  felt  bound  to  follow  his 
directions,  and  we  could  invite  only  those  whom 
Jesus  had  authorized  us  to  invite.  The  Bible  made 
three  things  prerequisite  to  a  proper  participation 
in  the  Lords'  Supper : 

"1st.  The  communicant  should  be  converted, 
regenerated,  else  he  could  not  spiritually  discern 
the  Lord's  body. 

"  2nd.  He  should  be  baptized,  by  which,  of  course, 
we  meant  immersed ;  as  we  did  not  regard  sprink- 
iDg  or  pouring  to  be  baptism  at  all. 

"  3rd.  He  should  be  in  fellowship  with  the  church, 
where  he  communes ;  for  if  he  has  been  converted 
and  we  baptize  him  ourselves,  yet,  if  from  miscon- 
duct or  false  doctrine  the  church  lias  disfellowshiped 
or  excommunicated  him,  or  if  he  holds  doctrines 
for  which  we  should  disfellowship  him,  he  is  not  a 
proper  communicant,  and  we  can  not  invite  him. 

"  We  can  extend  the  invitation  only  to  those  who 
possess  these  three  pre-requisites :  conversion,  bap- 
tism, and  church  fellowship  in  this  church,  or  one 
of  like  faith  and  order.  If  any  one  choose  to  partake 
without  an  invitation,  he  can  take  the  responsibility  —  we 
.shall  not  hinder  him. 


Fourteenth  Conversation.  247 

"The  Congregational  deacon  communed  with  us, 
seemingly  intensely  mortified  that  he  had  been 
caught  in  his  own  trap.  Instead  of  provoking  us  to 
forbid  his  participation,  he  found  we  did  not  hinder 
him  at  all;  but  let  him  take  the  responsibility,  after 
a  clear  exhibition  of  the  fact  that  we  regarded  him 
as  violating  the  law  of  Christ.  How  much  love  did 
he  wish  to  show  to  the  Baptists  by  communing  with 
them  ? 

"  I  baptized  his  daughter  soon  after." 

M.  There  is  another  objection,  brother  E.,  that 
our  friends  urge  very  much  against  the  Baptists, 
which  I  should  like  you  to  answer.  The  table  is  the 
Lord's,  say  they,  and  why  should  not  all  the  Lord's 
people  be  permitted  to  come  to  it  ? 

P.  Yes,  that  is  a  common  objection,  but  a  very 
poor  one  at  best.  I  know  it  is  the  Lord's  table :  he 
is  the  proprietor  of  it,  for  he  instituted  the  Supper. 
That  is  the  reason  why  the  Baptists  guard  it.  If  it 
were  their  table,  they  might,  like  us,  invite  the  un- 
regenerate  and  unbaptized  to  communion.  But 
they  can  not  do  this. 

The  Lord's  table  was  instituted  for  baptized 
believers.  No  others  have  the  riffht  to  come  to  it. 
It  must  be  approached  in  the  Gospel  way.  "  Over 
it  the  Baptists  have  no  discretionary  authority;  and 
they  place  no  obstructions  in  the  way  of  approach. 
The  Lord  of  the  table  himself  has  fenced  it  round. 
He  has  set  it  in  the  church,  and  to  get  into  the 
church  to  partake  of  the  Supper,  we  must  be  re- 


248  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

generated  and  baptized."  So  that  the  objection, 
instead  of  applying,  to  Baptists,  is  virtually  made 
against  the  Saviour.  The  fact  is,  we  think  more 
highly  of,  and  guard  more  carefully,  our  human 
institutions,  than  we  do  the  ordinances  of  Christ. 

31.  That's  a  sweeping  declaration,  brother  E. 
How  so  ?     Surely  you  must  be  mistaken. 

P.  No,  I  am  not.  We  say,  you  must  believe 
and  do  certain  things,  before  you  can  join  our 
churches,  and  then  we  say,  virtually,  you  may 
believe  and  practice  what  you  please,  it  is  no  differ- 
ence, come  to  the  Lord's  table.  Your  church  says, 
or  did  say,  you  may  come  to  our  love-feasts  and 
class-meetings  twice  or  thrice,  but  if  you  will  not 
join  us  then,  you  can  come  no  more :  yet,  say  your 
ministers,  you  may  come  to  the  Lord's  table  as  often 
as  you  please.  Thus  virtually  saying  you  esteem 
the  institutions  of  men  of  more  importance  than  the 
ordinance  of  Christ.  Thus  we  depreciate  the  ordi- 
nances of  Jesus,  and  elevate  above  them  the  inven- 
tions of  men ! 

31.  Well,  but  our  class-meetings  and  love-feasts 
are  only  'prudential  means  of  grace. 

P.  Prudential !  Does  it  require  less  prudence 
in  guarding  the  Lord's  table  ?  But  let  us  return  to 
the  first  objection.  "  We  have  no  record  of  any  per- 
son '  breaking  bread '  in  the  Pentecostal  church  who 
had  not  i  gladly  received '  the  Word,  and  been  bap- 
tized. And  this  is  all  that  Baptist  churches  require 
now.     They  have  raised  no  bar  to  communion ;  they 


Fourteenth  Conversation.  249 

can  throw  none  down.  They  do  not  refuse  to  receive 
any  disciple  who  is  willing  to  enter  on  the  same- 
footing  as  those  already  incorporated  in  the  body 
of  Christ." 

Eestricted  communion  guards  the  Lord's  table 
against  all  unlawful  approaches,  proclaiming  the 
absolute  necessity  of  regeneration  and  baptism ;  but 
open  communion  breaks  down  all  barriers,  and  vir- 
tually repudiates  the  necessity  both  of  regeneration 
and  baptism  as  requisites  for  the  Lord's  table ! 

M.  I  begin  to  feel  ashamed  of  myself  for  not 
knowing  better.  And  yet  it  seems  unfriendly-like 
not  to  commune  with  each  other.  "  Close  commu- 
nion" said  a  minister,  "separates  dear  friends.1" 

P.  Who  shows  the  greatest  friendship  for  the 
Saviour?  He  who  keeps,  or  he  who  breaks  his 
commandments  ?  On  the  same  process  of  reason- 
ing, we  may  demand  the  destruction  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  churches,  because  by  them  families  are 
divided.  Suppose  a  Baptist  should  contend  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  ought  to  be  destroyed,  because 
his  family  has  been  divided  by  some  of  his  children 
becoming  Presbyterians!  Would  not  his  demand 
be  as  pertinent  —  as  wise  —  as  the  reason  urged 
above  against  restricted  communion?  "I  am  come 
to  set  a  man  at  variance  against  his  father,"  are  the 
words  of  the  Saviour.  Why  not  demand  the  des- 
truction of  the  religion  of  Christ?  It  separates 
dear  friends ! 

"  Ye  are  my  friends,"  said  Jesus,  "  If  ye  do  what- 
11* 


250  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

soever  I  command  you."  To  violate  a  command- 
ment of  his,  for  the  sake  of  relationship  or  friendship, 
is  to  prove  ourselves  not  worthy  of  him.  "  He  that 
loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me  is  not  worthy 
of  me,  and  he  that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than 
me  is  not  worthy  of  me ;  and  he  that  taketh  not  his 
cross  and  followeth  after  me  is  not  worthy  of  me. 
Whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I 
also  deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." — 
Matt.  x.  33 — 38.  Thus  has  the  claim  of  Christ  pre- 
cedence of  every  other  claim;  and  he  who  wilfully 
disobeys  his  Lord's  holy  requirements  to  p^ove  how 
devotedly  he  loves  another,  exhibits  his  friendship 
in  no  desirable  light  and  beauty. 


Fifteenth     Conversation, 


The  Baptists  Examined — {Continued?) 


S  not  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  as 

some  say,  a  test  of   Christian   Union? 

And   is   not  close  communion  a  barrier 

to  it?  inquired  brother  C. 

P.     I  will  let  a  distinguished  Baptist  reply  to  this. 

It  is  an  extract  taken  from  Dr.  Armitage's  speech 

on  "  Christian  Union,  Real  and  Unreal :" 

"  Our  Saviour  did  not  intend  it  to  be  a  test  of 
Christian  union,  so  far  as  we  find  any  thing  in  the 
Bible.  No  Christian  denomination  so  holds  it,  so 
far  as  they  set  forth  their  views  upon  the  matter  in 
their  best  expositors  or  authorized  standards.  It  is 
never  so  used  in  their  articles  of  faith,  catechisms, 
or  creeds.  Intelligent  and  honest  men  never  so  use 
it  in  defining  the  import  of  the  Supper.  All  Pedo- 
baptists,  when  in  controversy  with  Romanists,  put 
a  different  interpretation  from  this  upon  the  design 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  when  it  becomes  desirable 
to  dress  down  the  Baptists  by  stigmatizing  them  as 
Exclusive,'  and   'bigots,'  they  call   the   Supper  a 


252  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

test  of  union.  Is  this  honorable  among  gentlemen, 
to  say  nothing  of  Christians  and  ambassadors  of 
Christ?  Wh}T  give  an  interpretation  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  when  an  appeal  can  be  based  upon  the 
ignorance  or  prejudices  of  men,  to  the  injury  of 
Baptists,  which  is  never  put  upon  it  under  any  other 
circumstance?  The  fact  is,  the  Bible  defines  the 
object  of  the  Supper  to  be  specific.  It  was  instituted 
for  one  thing,  and  for  one  thing  only.  What  was 
that?  To  '  show  forth '  your  love  for  one  another? 
Did  Christ  say  that?  No,  sirs.  To  '  show  forth' 
your  Christian  union  ?  No,  sirs.  Neither  did  Christ 
say  that.  To  '  show  forth'  Christ  himself,  as  the 
Son  of  God  —  born  in  the  manger  —  healing  in  the 
Temple  —  agonizing  in  the  Garden?  No,  sirs;  not 
even  that.  To  '  show  forth'  Christ,  truly,  but  only 
in  one  act  of  his  mediation,  as  Paul  expresses  it: 
1  To  show  forth  his  death.'  This,  and  only  this. 
No  more  and  no  less.  And  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  never  give  it  any  other  interpretation, 
except  when,  in  an  unhappy  moment,  they  stand 
behind  the  cross  of  Christ  to  make  their  Baptist 
brethren  appear  unmitigated  bigots.  Is  not  this 
true  ?  I  appeal  to  my  candid  and  honorable  breth- 
ren of  various  denominations  now  present  to  say  if 
this  is  not  true. 

"  Now,  then,  take  another  view  of  the  matter. 
Take  the  facts  of  the  Last  Supper  as  Jesus  himself 
administered  it.  Let  me  ask  you,  did  John  show 
his  Christian  union  with  Judas  Iscariot  when  they 


Fifteenth  Conversation,  253 

took  the  sop  together  from  the  same  divine  hand? 
Certainly,  if  ever,  that  should  have  been  the  time. 
Did  the  male  portion  of  the  discipleship  siiow  their 
Christian  unity  with  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  with 
his  other  female  followers,  when  they  celebrated  the 
supper  alone  ?     Did  Jesus  intend  that  they  should  ? 
But  if  the  Supper  is  a  mark  of  Christian  union,  Why 
were  those  holy  women  not  present  to  celebrate  it, 
seeing  that  the  discipleship  was  emphatically  one? 
Our  Lord's  prayer  for  union  was  offered  after  the 
Supper  was  administered.     Therefore  he  prayed  for 
a  oneness  among  his  disciples  that  the  Supper  did 
not,  and  could  not,  supply.     The  fact  is,  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  practically  made  of  more  importance 
in  these  days  than  other  institutions  of  our  Lord. 
Our  Lord  evidently  intended  that  in  Gospel  churches 
the  Lord's  Supper  should  be  of  no  more  importance 
than  the  Lord's  baptism.     If  one  is  a  naked  form, 
the  other  is  a  naked  form :  if  one  is  a  saving  vitality, 
the  other  is  a  saving  vitality;    if  one  is  a  means 
of  divine  grace,    the    other   is   a   means  of  divine 
grace ;  and  if  one  is  but  a  symbolical  act,  the  other 
is  but  a  sy-nibolical  act.     If  one  is  a  putting  on  of 
Christ,  the   other  is  a  showing  forth  of  his  death 
when  he  is  put  on.     Then  what  end  for  the  truth, 
or  the  glory  of  God,  can  be  secured  by  the  foisting 
in  of  some  mystical  sense  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  one,  which  you  exclude  from  the  other  ?     Why 
do  you  treat  the  one  as  if  it  were  of  the  most  solemn 
import  imaginable,  and  the  other  as  if  it  were  the 


254  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

emptiest  form  possible?  Both  of  them  are  Christ's 
ordinances,  enjoined  upon  his  people;  they  are 
equally  hallowed  and  binding,  and  neither  of  them 
is  intended  as  a  test  of  Christian  union.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  are  well 
satisfied  of  this  themselves.  Hence,  none  of  them 
are  really  open  communion." 

M.  Are  you  not  aware,  brother  E.,  that  there  is 
now  a  great  cry  for  "  union"  in  certain  quarters? 

P.  Yes,  I  am  aware  of  it;  and  I  have  watched, 
with  considerable  interest,  some  of  the  union  move- 
ments ;  and  seen  some  very  strange  things  connected 
with  them.  The  American  Sunday  School  Union 
publishes  and  sells  books  in  which  Pedobaptist  views 
are  distinctly  set  forth. 

M.  I  thought  the  American  Sunday  School 
Union  was  strictly  neutral,  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. 

P.  That  is  what  it  purports  to  be.  But  let  me 
give  you  some  extracts  from  a  work,  entitled,  "  The 
Way  of  Life,"  written  by  Dr.  Hodge,  a  Presbyterian, 
of  Princeton,  and  published  by  the  Union:  "The 
Bible  teaches  us  that  the  sacraments  are  the  signs 
of  spiritual  blessings." — P.  259.  "  We  should 
greatly  err,  however,  if  we  supposed  they  were 
merely  signs.  We  are  taught  that  they  are  seals; 
that  they  were  appointed  by  Christ  to  certify  to 
believers  their  interest  in  the  blessings  of  the  coven- 
ant of  grace.  Among  men  a  seal  is  used  for  the 
purpose   of    authentication    and    confirmation." — 


Fifteenth  Conversation,  255 

P.  262.  "  The  Gospel  is  represented  under  the 
form  of  a  covenant.  It  is  so  called  by  Christ  him- 
self. *  *  The  sacraments  are  the  seals  of  this 
covenant." — Pp.  263-4.  "  Again,  as  the  sacraments 
are  the  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  reject  these 
seals  is  to  reject  the  covenant  itself." — P.  278. 

Here  jou  have  Pedobaptism  condensed  into  a 
small  compass  —  assertions  which  every  Baptist 
denies. 

Here  is  a  quotation  from  another  book,  "  Isa 
Greame's  World,"  p.  21 :  "  If  there  is  hope  for  any 
one,  he  was  sure  there  must  be  for  him ;  for  was  he 
not  of  the  seed  of  the  faithful,  the  child  of  innu- 
merable prayers?  Had  he  not  sat,  a  very  Timothy, 
at  the  feet  of  his  pious  mother  and  grandmother? 
And  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  if  there  was  any  thing  in 
that,  had  it  not  rested  upon  every  Greame  from 
generation  to  generation  ?" 

M.  I  see,  the  same  idea  of  sealing  the  children, 
by  baptism,  over  to  Christ. 

P.  Here  is  another  specimen,  quoted  from 
"Proverbs  Illustrated,"  a  work  purchased  at  the 
Union's  rooms  in  Philadelphia:  "And  so,  just  as 
daylight  was  breaking  over  the  eastern  sky,  the 
little  wailing  infant  was  baptized  into  the  Church  of 
Christy 

M.  "Baptized  into  the  Church  of  Christ;"  out 
of  which  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  says 
there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation.  Really, 
I  must  ask  the  same  question  you  asked  me :  "What 


i$6  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

is  to  become  of  the  unbaptized,  unsealed  children, 
who  are  out  of  the  Church  of  Christ?" 

P.  You  must  answer  that.  Besides  the  above, 
the  Sunday  School  Union  sells  pictures  representing 
Jesus  standing  in  the  water  of  the  Jordan,  nearly  up 
to  his  knees,  while  John  is  standing  on  the  shore 
pouring  water  on  his  head  from  a  sea-shell  in  his 
right  hand,  while  in  his  left  he  holds  a  cross.  Let 
me  get  you  the  picture.  I  bought  a  package  from 
which  it  is  taken  for  our  Sunday  school.  Here  it  is 
—  look  at  it. 

M.  That  is  equal  to  the  one  where  Philip  is 
pouring  water  on  the  Eunuch  from  a  clam-shell ! 

P.  I  could  give  you  several  more  illustrations 
from  the  Union's  works,  but  these  are  sufficient  to 
prove  what  I  have  stated,  that  the  American  Sun- 
day School  Union,  purporting  to  be  an  unsectarian 
publishing  house,  deriving  its  support  from  Baptists 
as  well  as  Pedobaptists,  is  employed  in  circulating 
works  advocating  Pedobaptist  principles :  and  yet, 
it  "  only  proposes  to  disseminate  those  truths  in 
which  all  evangelical  Christians  can  unite !" 

31.  I  am  surprised  that  a  Society  professedly 
union  should  publish  such  things. 

P.  And  I  am  more  surprised  that  Baptists 
should  give  aid  and  support  to  their  enemies  by 
patronizing  such  an  institution. 

This  cry  of  "union!  union!"  always  reminds  me 
of  an  anecdote  I  once  heard : 

A  certain  Pedobaptist  minister,  preaching  on  the 


Fifteenth  Conversation,  257 

observance  of  the  Sabbath,  said  it  was  very  wrong 
for  young  people  to  keep  company  on  Sabbath 
evenings.  After  meeting,  mounting  his  horse,  he 
turned  to  a  young  man  by  his  side,  and  said : 

"  Come,  John,  let  us  go  down  to  Deacon  Smith's 
and  see  the  girls." 

"  Why,"  replied  John,  in  surprise,  "  did  you  not 
tell  us  it  was  wrong  to  keep  company  with  the  girls 
on  Sunday  evenings !" 

"Psha!"  replied  the  preacher :  "I  only  said  that 
that  we  might  have  a  better  chance !" 

Whenever  you  hear  a  man  blowing  hard  for  union, 
be  sure  he  is  doing  it  that  he  may  have  a  better 
chance  at  Deacon  Smith's  ! 

M.  And  so  with  those  who  are  always  charging 
others  with  proselyting. 

P.  Such  union  is  like  that  which  the  Baptist 
deacon  wanted.  Two  old  Baptist  deacons  had 
quarelled.  One  relented  and  said  to  the  other: 
"  Brother,  this  is  all  wrong ;  we  ought  to  be  recon- 
ciled; therefore,  I  do  insist  upon  it,  that  you  shall 
be  reconciled, for  I  can  not!" 

Christian  union,  so  called,  is  a  union  in  which 
men  agree  to  disagree;  and  to  give  the  go-by  to 
certain  truths,  however  vital  those  truths  may  be. 

M.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  in  what  you 
Bay  about  union.  I  remember  a  union  meeting  in 
which  the  Baptists  participated.  At  the  close,  our 
friends  lesolved  to  have  a  union  communion;  and, 


258  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

beeause  the  Baptists  could  not  join  with  them,  they 
were  denounced  as  bigots. 

P.  That  was  unkind,  ungenerous,  and  cruel, 
They  knew  the  Baptists  could  not  join  with  them 
before  they  resolved  on  their  communion.  The 
Baptists  are  almost  sure  to  get  a  slap  in  the  face  in 
these  union  meetings. 

31.  Some  of  our  friends  seem  to  enjoy  "  slap- 
ping" the  Baptists.     It  was  a  luxury  to  me  once. 

P.  But  here  is  a  good  thing,  where  the  "  slap" 
was  returned  with  interest : 

One  day  a  Baptist  of  Minnesota  was  in  the  com- 
pany of  some  Methodist  ministers,  when  close 
communion  was  introduced.  One  of  the  company 
said  to  the  Baptist:  "I  should  like  you  Baptists 
pretty  well,  if  it  were  not  for  your  close  com- 
munion." To  which  the  Baptist,  turning  to  the 
others,  replied,  by  relating  the  following  incident: 
"  A  Baptist  missionary  was  riding  over  our  North- 
ern prairies,  and  it  was  so  excessively  cold  and 
stormy  that  he  had  to  drive  up  to  a  house  and  ask 
to  stay  over  night.  The  owner,  well  known  to  the 
missionary,  listened  to  the  request,  and  then,  with- 
out a  word,  went  in  and  closed  the  door  in  his  face, 
leaving  him  out  in  the  storm.  The  missionary  was 
so  completely  chilled  that  he  had  to  go  under  a 
shed,  and  jump  and  walk  about  to  warm  himself. 
All  of  which  must  have  been  known  to  the  inhospit- 
able owner."  "  Shame !  shame !"  cried  all  the 
listeners  but  one.     "  Well,  gentlemen,"  that  mis- 


Fifteenth  Conversation.  259 

sionary  was  your  speaker;  and  the  man  who  closed 
the  door  in  his  face  was  the  one  who  has  just 
denounced  our  close  communion." 

M.  I  should  have  felt  like  crawling  into  some 
very  small  place,  if  I'd  been  him. 

P.  Here  is  another  incident  that  shows  how  will- 
ing some  of  us  are  for  union.  A  backslider,  who 
had  joined  the  church  two  or  three  times  previously 
to  this,  had  a  wife,  a  devoted  Christian,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  a  Baptist  church.  He  wanted  to  join  the 
church  again,  and  asked  her  to  unite  with  him. 
She  hesitated.  "Well,"  said  he  at  last,  "if  I  lose 
my  soul,  I  shall  have  to  blame  you  for  it !" 

M.  That  was  shameful,  if  he  did  want  to  join 
our  church.  I  have  no  faith  in  such  union.  And 
when  a  husband  asks  his  wife  to  sacrifice  her  prin- 
ciples, and  leave  the  church  of  her  choice,  merely 
for  his  own  accommodation,  he  shows  himself  not 
much  of  a  man  after  all,  and  pays  her  a  poor  com- 
pliment, and  the  church  she  joins  does  not  gain 
much  by  it.  Let  a  man  join  a  church  on  principle, 
and  then  he  is  likely  to  be  firm,  useful  and  respected. 
If  he  conscientiously  wants  to  change  his  church 
relationship,  let  him  —  it's  his  privilege;  and  I 
won't  throw  a  stick  in  his  way,  nor  club  him  after- 
wards, as  some  do ! 

[Brother  C.  was  certainly  at  the  effervescing 
point.] 

P.  The  truth  is,  we  make  the  subject  of  com- 
munion a  matter  of  feeling,  instead  of  principle. 


260  Conversations  on  Baptism* 

To  accommodate  our  feelings,  we  require  the  Bap- 
tist to  sacrifice  his  principles  —  to  join  our  churches. 
A.  and  B.  were  members  of  Pedobaptist  churches, 
and  had  never  communed  together.  A.  had  been 
brought  to  see  his  error,  and  told  B.  of  his  resolu- 
tion to  join  the  Baptists.  B.  remonstrated,  cried 
bitterly  about  it ;  and,  as  a  last  resort,  said :  "  Well, 
if  you  join  the  Baptists  you  will  prevent  me  com- 
muning with  you ;  and  if  you  can't  commune  with 
me  here,  how  can  you  expect  to  commune  with  me 
in  heaven  !"  To  which  A.  replied  :  "  I  love  you,  and 
am  sorry  to  grieve  }7ou.  But  shall  I  disobey  a  clear 
conviction  of  duty,  and  not  follow  my  Saviour  ? 
Much  as  I  esteem  you,  I  can  not  do  it.  He  has  said, 
*  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is 
not  worthy  of  me.'  He  tells  me  to  be  baptized; 
and  I  believe  that  immersion  only  is  baptism.  For 
me  to  join  your  church  is  to  say  that  sprinkling  is 
baptism ;  and  to  commune  with  your  church,  is  to 
acknowledge  that  you  have  all  been  baptized.  Thus 
you  ask  me  to  deny  my  Saviour,  and  violate  my 
convictions  of  the  truth.  But  the  way  to  com- 
munion is  much  easier  for  you." 

"  How  so  V  inquired  B. 

"  Follow  your  Saviour  and  the  apostolic  example. 
You  say  it  is  indifferent  how  a  person  is  baptized. 
Why  not  then  give  up  what  is  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence? You  have  no  conscience  to  compromise  — 
be  immersed;  you  believe  it  baptism.  The  advan- 
tage is  on  your  side." 


Fifteenth  Conversation.  261 

We  are  just  like  the  Universalist  on  this  matter 
of  feeling.  "I  can't /^  that  future  punishment  is 
true,"  says  he.  "I  can't  feel  like  letting  my  friends 
be  punished  hereafter;  and  I  won't  have  it."  And 
the  Universalist  is  as  consistent  as  the  Congrega- 
tionalist. 

Thus  you  see  we  require  the  Baptist  to  sacrifice 
all  for  our  accommodation ;  but  we,  though  boast- 
ing of  liberality  and  union,  wont  yield  a  jot  to 
accommodate  him.  If  we  are  so  anxious  to  have 
union  of  communion,  here  is  the  Apostolic  platform 
on  which  we  can  all  unite : 

"  One  Lord,  One  Faith,  One  Baptism." 

M.  That  is  a  very  good  platform,  I  must  confess. 
Only  three  planks  in  it. 

P.  And  broad  enough  and  strong  enough  to 
accommodate  the  whole  world;  divinely  fitted 
together,  with  no  slabs  of  man's  invention  between. 
But  you  say  close  communion  separates  dear  friends. 
Let  us  look  at  it  in  another  way.  How  many  times 
have  you  communed  with  the  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists  ? 

M.  Let  me  see.  [Thinks  awhile.]  Eot  once. 
Somehow  it  was  never  convenient  for  me  to  do  so. 
How  many  times  have  you  communed  with  us? 

P.  Just  as  often  as  you  have  with  us,  and  for  the 
same  reason.  There  are  many  of  us  who  never 
find  it  convenient  to  commune  with  the  Methodists. 


262  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

[Here  the  two  friends  could  not  help  smiling  at 
their  position.] 

AVell  [continued  Mr.  E.]  if  it  is  such  a  "precious 
privilege"  to  commune  with  others,  why  don't  you 
improve  it?  I  shrewdly  guess  if  the  Baptists  had 
unrestricted  communion,  we  should  be  found  as 
often  communing  with  them  as  we  do  with  each 
other  —  that  we  make  the  objection  for  other  rea- 
sons. 

Thus,  you  see,  all  your  talk  about  its  being  such 
a  "  dear  privilege,"  and  the  illiberality  of  the  Bap- 
tists, amounts  to  nothing.  We  do  not  commune 
with  each  other.  Besides,  we  exclude  many  of  the 
members  of  our  own  churches  from  the  Lord's 
table.  Some  of  us  baptize  them  into  the  church, 
and  "  teach  that  baptism  is  necessary,  and  that  grace 
is  thereby  offered,  and  that  children  are  to  be  bap- 
tized, who  are  by  such  baptism  dedicated  to  God, 
and  made  'pleasing  to  him."  [Augsburg  Confession, 
art.  ix.]  Others  call  the  baptized  "young  Chris- 
tians;" and  some  say  baptism  is  putting  the  child's 
name  into  the  Gospel  grant;  others  say  the  children  of 
Christian  parents  are  born  into  the  church;  while 
still  others  say  baptism  washes  away  original  sin, 
and  makes  the  children  holy  !  And  yet  they  are  not 
allowed  to  commune  until  these  churches  see  proper. 
The  Baptists  commune  with  all  they  baptize  into 
their  fellowship;  but  we  baptize  them  into  our 
churches,  and  then  bar  them  from  the  Lord's  table, 
after  making  them  the  Lord's  children !    Does  it  not 


Fifteenth  Conversation.  263 

require  as  much  intelligence  to  comprehend  the 
nature  of  baptism  as  it  does  the  Lord's  Supper? 

31.  That  argument,  brother  E.,  destroys  infant 
baptism !  Certainly,  if  they  can  not  comprehend 
the  one,  they  can  not  the  other.  And  if  they  are 
kept  from  the  Lord's  table  because  they  can  not 
understand  it,  they  ought  not  to  be  baptized  for  the 
same  reason. 

P.  Your  reasoning  is  unanswerable.  Certainly 
they  ought  not.  And  if  the  children  are  to  be 
baptized,  why  should  they  not  come  to  the  Lord's 
table?  They  saw  the  necessity  of  this  who  first 
invented  infant  baptism;  and  hence  the  baptized 
children  partook  of  the  Supper,  though  some  had  to 
be  fed  with  a  spoon.  Why  don't  our  friends  follow 
this  example?  and  after  baptizing  the  children  to 
wash  away  their  sins,  bring  them  to  the  Lord's 
table  —  even  if  they  have  to  be  fed  with  a  spoon! 

But  to  continue.  "It  is  a  singular  fact,"  says  a 
writer,  "  that  after  all  that  has  been  said  and  written 
by  Pedobaptists  in  favor  of  open  communion ; 
though  it  has  been  referred  to  as  the  great  desidera- 
tum of  Christendom,  there  is  to-day  no  such  thing 
as  open  communion  among  Pedobaptist  themselves. 
Presbyterians  and  Methodists  will  commune  to- 
gether, and  denounce  each  other's  Calvinism  and 
Arniinianism  the  next  day,  if  not  the  next  hour. 
Not  many  years  have  passed  away  since  the  Old 
School  General  Assembly  of  Presbyterians  declined 
an   invitation  to  commune  with  the  New   School 


264  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

General  Assembly,  both  being  in  session  at  the  same 
time. 

The  Old  School  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Missouri 
met  at  Booneville,  and  after  several  days  of  angry 
disputation,  it  was  rent  asunder,  and  on  Sabbath  the 
two  separate  organizations  met  at  the  same  hour  in 
different  places  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Episcopalians  will  not  go  and  commune  with  the 
Methodists  and  Presbyterians.  The  United  General 
Presbyterian  Church,  composed  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  and  Seceders,  and  the  Reformed  Presby- 
terian Church,  have  close  communion.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  latter  is  thus  stated  by  one  of  its  minis- 
ters : 

"  As  the  church  is  invested  with  authority  which 
she  is  bound  to  exercise,  to  keep  the  ordinances 
pure  and  entire,  sacramental  communion  is  not  to 
be  extended  to  those  who  do  not  approve  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  particular  church,  or  submit  themselves 
to  her  authority.  *  *  *  She  does  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  allow  every  man  to  be  the  judge  of  his 
own  qualifications  for  sealing  ordinances,  to  dispense 
these  ordinances  to  such  as  do  not  assent  to  her 
religious  principles,  or  whom  she  could  not  subject 
to  her  discipline  were  they  found  violating  their 
Christian  obligations." 

Why  do  you  denounce  the  Baptists  so  much,  and 
not  these  ? 

31.  I  was  not  aware  that  close  communion  was 
practiced  so  extensively  by  Pedobaptist  churches. 


Fifteenth  Conversation,  265 

P.  !No,  I  suppose  not.  And  why  should  there 
be  such  a  united  opposition  to  the  restricted  com- 
munion of  the  Baptists,  and  nothing  said  about  the 
close  communion  of  Pedobaptist  churches?  Both 
believe  baptism  necessary  to  communion.  Here  is  a 
key  to  unlock  the  mystery :  the  restricted  commu- 
nion of  the  Baptists,  as  previously  stated,  protests 
against  the  validity  of  'pouring  and  sprinkling,  and 
charges  the  Pedo baptists  with  substituting  these  for 
the  primitive  baptism.  It  applies  the  ax  to  the  root 
of  the  tree  planted  in  the  soil  of  human  expediency. 
This  appears  to  me  the  rock  of  offence. 

Let  us  look  a  little  farther.  On  May  2nd,  1648, 
the  Presbyterians,  having  the  ascendancy  in  the 
British  Parliament,  "passed  a  law  against  heretics, 
which  is  hardly  to  be  paralleled  among  Protestants. 
One  of  the  errors  specified  was  the  holding  that  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  unlawful  and  void,  and  that 
such  person  ought  to  be  baptized  again.  The  per- 
son implicated  was,  on  confession,  to  '  renounce  it  in 
the  public  congregation ;'  or,  '  in  case  of  refusal,  be 
committed  to  prison  till  he  find  sureties  that  he 
shall  not  publish  the  said  error  or  errors  anymore.'  " 
— NeaVs  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  part  iii.  ch.  10. 

M.  That  certainly  was  a  very  intolerant  law.  I 
wonder  what  our  Presbyterian  friends  think  of  it 
now? 

P.  There  was  close  communion  for  the  poor 
Baptist  in  prison  with  his  God,  but  a  poor  chance 
for  open  communion  with  his  Presbyterian  brethren, 
12 


266  Conversations  on  Baftism. 

TsTor  was  there,  on  the  part  of  Congregational- 
ists,  in  New  England,  a  desire  to  commune  with 
Baptists,  when,  in  the  early  settlement  of  the 
country,  they  fined,  scourged,  imprisoned,  and 
banished  them.  The  Brain  tree  church  debarred 
their  sister,  Hannah  Linfield,  from  communion, 
for  being  re-baptized,  which  implied  that  infant 
baptism  was  a  nullity,  and  that  so  the  church  were 
unbaptized.  And  Solomon  Paine,  a  Congregation- 
alist  minister,  wrote  an  article,  the  sum  of  which 
was,  "  That  if  any  godly  people,  who  do  not  hold 
infant  baptism,  confessed  that  it  might  be  their 
darkness  that  they  did  not  hold  it,  he  would  com- 
mune with  them;  but  he  could  not  commune  with 
those  who  said  it  was  their  light,  and  not  their  dark- 
ness, which  made  them  reject  infant  baptism." 

M.  Why,  that  beats  any  thing  I  have  heard  on 
our  side  of  the  question.  Why  are  the  Congrega- 
tion alists  so  anxious  to  commune  with  the  Baptists 
now  ? 

P.  I  can  not  tell :  the  Baptists  hold  the  same 
principles  they  ever  did.  Thus,  you  see,  "open 
communion,  falsely  so  called,  is  a  recent  thing.  It 
has  not  sufficient  age  on  its  side  to  make  it  respect- 
able." 

I  will  now  prove  that  we  —  Presbyterians  and 
Methodists  —  are  close  communionists  of  a  strange 
type.  But  as  it  is  late,  suppose  I  defer  it  until  to- 
morrow evening. 

M.     So  be  it. 


Sixteenth      Conversation. 

The  Baptists  Examined — (Continued?) 


AST  evening  I  promised  to  prove  that  the 
Presbyterians  and  Methodists  are  more 
close  in  their  communion,  and  less  liberal, 
than  the  Baptists,  said   Mr.  E.,  in  com- 
mencing the  Conversation  this  evening. 

Methodist.  Yes ;  and  if  you  can  do  that,  it  is 
more  than  I  now  believe. 

Presbyterian.  "Well,  let  us  examine  the  testi- 
mony. The  Presbyterians  say,  in  the  Westminister 
Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  25,  sec.  2: 

"  The  visible  church  consists  of  all  those  through- 
out the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  with 
their  children,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  -which 
there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation." 

This  doctrine,  if  true,  a  writer  has  remarked,  is 
most  melancholy  and  heart-rending;  for,  taking  all 
the  world,  probably  not  one  child  out  of  ten  thou- 


268  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

sand  is  born  of  parents  "  that  prof  ess  the  true  religion" 
Therefore,  they  are  not  of  "  the  house  and  family  of 
God;  and  for  them  "  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility 
of  salvation."  What  the  extraordinary  possibility  is 
we  are  left  to  conjecture. 

M.  That  is  a  very  strange  article  of  faith.  I 
suppose  our  Presbyterian  friends  believe  that  they 
"profess  the  true  religion."  As  Methodists  our 
Arminianism  is  directly  opposed  to  their  Calvinism. 
"What  is  to  become  of  us  ? 

P.  That  is  not  for  me  to  say.  Again:  "A 
particular  church,"  says  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  "  consists  of  a  number  of 
professing  Christians,  with  their  offspring."  They 
become  members,  by  baptism,  for  "  baptism  is  the 
act  whereby  the  parties  baptized  are  solemnly 
admitted  into  the  visible  church."— P.  337.  "All 
baptized  persons  are  members  of  the  church,  are 
under  its  care,  and  subject  to  its  government  and 
discipline.  And  when  they  have  arrived  at  the 
years  of  discretion,  they  are  bound  to  perform  all 
the  duties  of  church  members." — 456.  Here  you 
see  all  baptized  children  are  members  of  the  church. 

M.  Of  course,  then,  you  allow  them  to  come  to 
the  Lord's  table. 

P.  ISTot  at  all.  As  a  church  we  deny  them  that 
privilege.  We  say,  "when  they  come  to  years  of 
discretion,  if  they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober 
and  steady,  and  to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to 
discern  the  Lord's  body,  they  ought  to  be  informed 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  269 

it  is  their  duty  and  privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper."— P.  504. 

M.  Do  you  allow  these  baptized  church  mem- 
bers to  say  when  they  have  come  to  years  of  discre- 
tion ? 

P.  "No.  "  The  years  of  discretion  in  young 
Christians  can  not  be  fixed.  This  must  be  left  to 
the  prudence  of  the  eldership.  The  officers  of  the 
church  are  the  judges  of  the  qualifications  of  those 
to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances  [Lord's  Supper 
and  Baptism],  and  of  the  time  it  is  proper  to  admit 
young  Christians  to  them." — P.  205. 

M.  Well,  I  declare,  that  beats  the  Baptists. 
That's  close  communion  within  close  communion. 
You  baptize  them  into  the  church  —  put  the  seal  on 
them  —  make  them  a  part  of  the  church  —  call  them 
young  Christians,  and  then  will  not  allow  them  to 
come  to  the  Lord's  table  until  your  elders  see  fit ! 
You  will  not  allow  them  to  judge  of  their  own 
qualifications,  nor  of  the  time  they  should  com- 
mune.    I  must  say  that  it  looks  very  queer. 

P.  I  acknowledge  it.  Our  conduct  as  a  church 
is  very  inconsistent.  We  fence  them  from  the 
Lord's  table  after  pronouncing  them  baptized  mem- 
bers of  the  church  and  young  Christians.  "  Those 
who  have  no  claim  on  the  children's  bread,  can  have 
no  claim  to  the  children's  baptism." 

31.  But  you  allow  all  Christians  of  other  denom- 
inations to  commune  with  }Tou? 

P.     There  you  catch  me  again.     Our  constitution 


270  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

says,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  May  any  who 
profess  the  faith,  and  desire  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Sapper,  be  kept  from  it?  Such  as  are  found  to  be^ 
ignorant  or  scandalous,  notwithstanding  their  pro- 
fession of  faith  and  desire  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  may  and  ought  to  be  kept  from  that  sacra- 
ment by  the  power  which  Christ  hath  left  in  his 
church." 

M.  How  much  intelligence  must  we  Methodists 
have  before  you  will  allow  ws  to  commune  with  you? 
I  suppose  you  call  us  "  ignorant." 

P.  I  can  not  determine  that.  "  The  officers  of 
the  church  are  the  judges  of  the  qualifications  of 
those  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances."  But 
one  of  our  synods  has  said  :  "  For  Presbyterians  to 
hold  communion  in  sealing  ordinances  with  those 
who  deny  the  doctrines  of  grace  [Arminians] 
through  the  blood  of  Christ,  etc.,  is  highly  prejudi- 
cial to. the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Nor  can  such 
intercommunion  answer  any  valuable  purpose  to 
those  who  practice  it,  as  two  can  not  walk  together 
except  they  be  agreed."  "  The  practice  of  inviting 
to  the  communion  all  who  are  of  good  standing  in 
their  own  churches,  is  calculated  to  do  much  evil, 
and  should  not  be  continued." 

M.  Brother  E.  that  pinches  a  little  too  hard. 
You  say  that  to  hold  communion  with  Methodists 
[Arminians]  "is  highly  prejudicial  to  the  truth," 
and  that  it  answers  no  valuable  purpose.  I  hope  I 
shall  never  after  this  hear  a  Presbyterian  talk  about 


Sixteenth  Conversation,  271 

Christian  liberality,  nor  prate  against  close  commu- 
nion. To  think  of  them  inviting  us  to  communion 
whan   they  say  we  "  deny  the  doctrines  of  grace !" 

P.  Don't  get  excited,  brother  C.  You  see  it  is 
one  thing  to  preach,  and  another  to  practice.  We 
preach  against  the  restricted  communion  of  the 
Baptists  because  it  condemns  our  sprinkling;  and 
then  practice  close  communion  because  it  is  prejudi- 
cial to  the  truth,  and  calculated  to  do  much  evil  to 
commune  with  the  Arminians,  the  ignorant,  and  all 
who  are  even  in  good  standing  in  other  churches. 

M.  So  far  as  }-our  church  is  concerned  you  have 
made  your  assertion  good.  You  are  close  com- 
munionists.  But  you  can't  prove  ours  a  closer 
church  than  the  Baptist. 

P.  Well,  let  us  look  at  your  church.  It  is  hard, 
however,  to  get  at  what  you  do  permanently  believe. 
Bishop  Emory,  in  his  History  of  the  Disci pline, 
says:  "The  Discipline,  as  revised  at  each  general 
conference,  being  in  itself  complete,  supplants  all 
that  has  gone  before  it,  and  the  previous  editions 
are  cast  aside  as  of  no  further  use.  The  Discipline 
has  undergone  about  twenty  distinct  revisions." 
Since  then  there  have  been  other  revisions.  At  one 
time  rules  were  adopted  by  the  general  conference 
requiring  the  liberation  of  slaves-  under  certain 
restrictions.  The  general  conference  said:  "In 
consideration  that  these  rules  form  a  new  basis  of 
communion,  every  person  concerned  who  will  not 
comply  with  them,  shall  have  the  liberty  quietly  to 


272  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

withdraw  himself  from  our  society ;"  or  else  he  waa 
to  he  excluded  from  the  society.  "But  no  person 
voluntarily  withdrawn  or  excl tided, "  said  the  con- 
ference, "  shall  ever  ever  partake  of  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord  with  the  Methodists,  till  he  complies  with  the 
above  requisitions" —  the  rules  referred  to. 

Then  you  had  the  following  rule:  "Let  no  per- 
son, who  is  not  a  member  of  our  church,  be  admitted 
to  the  communion  without  examination,  and  some 
token  given  by  an  elder  or  deacon." 

31.     Those  rules  have  been  abolished. 

P.  But  they  prove  that  your  general  conference 
makes  terms  of  communion  for  the  Lord's  table. 
Let  us  see  what  your  Discipline  says  now:  "No 
person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
among  us  who  is  guilty  of  an}7  practice  for  which 
we  would  exclude  a  member  of  our  church." — P. 
35.     What  do  you  "  exclude  "  members  for? 

M.  We  exclude  them  for  improper  tempers, 
words,  or  actions,  Discipline,  p.  117;  holding  and 
disseminating,  publicly  or  privately,  doctrines  con- 
trary to  our  articles  of  religion,  p.  114;  neglect  of 
the  means  of  grace,  such  as  the  public  worship  of 
God,  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  family  and  private 
prayer,  searching  the  Scriptures,  class-meetings,  and 
prayer-meetings,  p.  119;  neglect  of  duties  of  any 
kind,  imprudent  conduct,  and  indulging  sinful 
tempers  or  words,  or  disobedience  to  the  order  and 
discipline  of  the  church,  p.  120;   and  endeavoring 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  273 

to  sow  dissensions  in  our  societies,  by  inveighing 
against  our  doctrines  or  discipline,  p.  121. 

P.  And  then  you  say,  of  all  tne  foregoing  cases, 
"After   such   forms  of  trial   and    expulsion,    such 

PERSONS  SHALL    HAVE  NO  PRIVILEGES  OF    SOCIETY  OR  OF 
SACRAMENTS  IN  OUR  CHURCH." — P.  124. 

Suppose  any  of  these  excluded  persons  join  the 
Presbyterian,  or  any  other  church:  for  instance, 
"  those  who  hold  and  disseminate,  publicly  or 
privately,  doctrines  contrary  to  your  articles  of 
religion,"  whom  you  say,  shalt  be  dealt  with  "  as  in 
case  of  gross  immorality  "  114 ;  or  who  have  neglected 
class-meetings  ;  or  who  have  been  "  disobedient  to 
the  order  and  discipline  of  your  church;"  or  have 
talked  against  your  doctrines  or  discipline,  will  you 
allow  them  to  commune  with  you  ? 

31.  Of  course  we  can  not,  according  to  our  rules. 
The  Discipline  is  positive :  they  can  "  have  no  privi- 
leges of  society  or  of  sacraments  in  our  church.  No 
person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  among  us, 
who  is  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we  would  exclude 
a  member  of  our  church." 

P.  Thus  you  see  you  are  a  close  communion  church 
of  the  worst  type;  for  you  simply  exclude  these  mem- 
bers for  neglecting  an  institution  of  men,  disobedi- 
ence to  the  order  and  discipline  of  your  church,  a 
breach  of  your  rules,  and  not  for  immoral  conduct. 
And  not  satisfied  with  this,  you  follow  them  with 
the  rod,  and  say,  they  "  shall  not  be  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  table  among  you." 

12* 


274  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

31.  But  the  rule  says  nothing  about  class-meet- 
ings. 

P.  Grant  it.  But  it  includes  them.  The  rule 
Bays,  if  he  is  guilty  of  "any  practice"  for  which 
you  would  exclude  a  member.  No  difference  what 
the  practice  is*  for  which  they  are  excluded,  you  can 
not  let  them  commune. 

31.  But  the  rule  applies  only  to  excluded 
members. 

P.  Well,  grant  that,  also,  though  I  deny  it;  for 
the  rule  does  not  say,  let  no  person  among  us,  etc.,  but 

"  LET  NO  PERSON  BE  ADMITTED  TO  THE  LORD'S  TABLE 

among  us."  There  are  hundreds  in  other  churches 
who  have  been  excluded  from  your  church.  You 
can  not  let  them  commune.  If  you  have  the  right 
to  exclude  one  from  the  Lord's  table,  you  have  the 
right  to  exclude  more.  And  as  you  do  exclude  them, 
you  are  a  close  communion  church,  according  to 
your  Discipline. 

Your  Discipline  (page  114)  says,  "  Those  ministers 
or  preachers  who  hold  and  disseminate,  publicly  or 
privately,  doctrines  which  are  contrary  to  your 
articles  of  religion,"  shall  be  dealt  with  "as in  cases 
of  gross  immorality!"  And  that,  "after  such  form 
of  trial  and  expulsion,  the  person  so  expelled  shall 
have  no  privilege  of  society  or  of  sacraments  in  our 
church"  etc. 

Thus,  if  a  minister  holds  or  preaches  in  your 
church  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance,  or  any 
thing  that  is  contrary  to  your  articles  of  religion, 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  275 

he  is  to  be  dealt  with  as  in  cases  of  "gross  immor- 
ality" and  is  to  have  no  privilege  of  society  or  of  sacra- 
ments in  your  church. 

31.  Yes,  I  can  not  help  admitting  it,  with  the 
Discipline  before  me. 

P.  Is  not  that  a  pretty,  queer,  close  kind  of  close 
communion?  Your  Discipline  again  says,  page  121, 
"  If  a  member  of  our  church  shall  be  clearly  con- 
victed of  endeavoring  to  sow  dissensions  in  any  of 
our  societies,  by  inveighing  against  either  our  doc- 
trines or  discipline,  such  person  so  offending;  *  * 
if  he  persist  in  such  pernicious  practices,  he  shall  be 
expelled  from  the  church ;"  and  "such  persons 
shall  have  no  privileges  of  society  or  of  sacraments  in  our 
church"  etc. — P.  124.  Have  you  not  expelled  a 
great  many  under  that  rule?  Did  you  not  expel 
hundreds  of  Methodist  Protestants  for  talking 
against  your  Discipline? 

M.  It  is  too  true,  what  you  say.  We  did  expel 
them  under  that  rule.  It  is  a  painful  part  of  our 
history. 

P.     "Will  you  allow  them  to  commune  ? 

M.  Of  course  we  can  not,  and  abide  by  our 
Discipline. 

P.  Then,  again,  you  exclude  them  for  "neglect 
of  duties  of  any  kind,"  and  "disobedience  to  the 
order  and  discipline  of  [your]  church."  Here  you 
have  so  many  causes  for  exclusion  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  enumerate  them,  so  I  will  not  at- 
tempt it. 


276  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

Now,  I  contend  that  your  rule  virtually  excludes 
from  your  communion  every  member  of  every  other 
church.  Your  ministers  have  no  authority  for 
giving  a  general  invitation  to  the  Lord's  table.  The 
form  of  invitation,  as  given  in  your  Discipline,  is 
only  to  be  given  to  the  members  of  }rour  church,  as 
one  of  your  bishops  says.  (See  Hedding  on  Disci- 
pline.) It  reads  thus :  "  Ye  that  do  truly  and  earn- 
estly repent  of  your  sins,  and  are  in  love  and  charity 
with  your  neighbors,  and  intend  to  lead  a  new  life, 
following  the  commandments  of  God,  and  walking 
from  henceforth  in  his  holy  ways ;  draw  near  with 
faith,  and  take  this  holy  sacrament  to  your  comfort: 
and,  devoutly  kneeling,  make  your  humble  confes- 
sion to  Almighty  God." — P.  153.  If  you  know  of 
any  authority  for  giving  an  invitation  to  members 
of  any  other  churches,  I  should  like  to  know  it. 

M.  I  can  not  find  any  thing  more  than  what  you 
have  given. 

P.  The  only  authority  you  had  for  inviting 
members  of  other  churches  to  commune  with  yon, 
you  have  abolished.  That  was  very  restricting,  and 
read,  "  Let  no  person,  who  is  not  a  member  of  our 
church,  be  admitted  to  communion  without  exam- 
ination, and  some  token  given  by  an  elder  or  dea- 
con." In  abolishing  that  rule,  you  have  destroyed 
every  thing  in  your  Discipline  that  allowed  you  to 
admit  any  members  of  other  churches  to  your  com- 
munion.    And  now  the  rule  is: 

"  Let  no  person   be  admitted  to   the  Lord's   table 


Sixteenth  Conversation,  277' 

among  us,  who  is  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we 
would  exclude  a  member  of  our  church" — P.  35. 

I  have  shown  for  what  you  do  exclude  them  —  for 
the  very  "  practices  "  of  which  every  Presbyterian, 
Congregationalist,  Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  Free 
Methodist,  and  Baptist  is  guilty.  Now,  how  can 
you,  with  any  show  of  consistency,  ask  them  to 
commune  with  you  ? 

M.  I  don't  see  how  we  can ;  for  they  are  all 
"  disobedient  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  our 
church,"  and  such,  the  Discipline  says,  "  shall  have 
no  privilege  of  society  or  of  sacraments "  in  our 
church. 

P.  Now  read  this  extract,  and  you  will  see  that 
Bishop  Hedding  unsparingly  condemns  open  com- 
munion : 

"  Is  it  proper  for  a  preacher  to  give  out  a  general 
invitation  in  the  congregation  to  members  in  good 
standing  in  other  churches  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper?"  ii'No:  for  the  most  unworthy  persons 
are  apt  to  think  themselves  in  good  standing,  and 
sometimes  persons  who  are  not  members  of  any 
church,  will  take  the  liberty  from  such  an  invitation 
to  come.  And  again ;  there  are  some  communities 
called  churches  which,  from  heretical  doctrines  or 
immoral  practices,  have  no  claim  to  the  privileges 
of  Christians,  and  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  the 
communion  of  any  Christian  people.  The  rule  in 
that  case  is  as  follows,  and  it  ought  to  be  strictly 
adhered  to :  '  Let  no  person  who  is  not  a  member 


278  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

of  our  church  be  admitted  to  the  communion  with- 
out examination,  and  some  token  given,  by  an  elder 
or  deacon.  E"o  person  shall  be  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  among  us  who  is  guilty  of  any  prac- 
tice for  which  we  would  exclude  a  member  of  our 
church.'  " — Hedding  on  Discipline,  p.  72. 

Thus,  you  see,  whenever  your  ministers  give  a 
general  invitation  to  the  Lord's  table,  they  violate 
their  discipline  and  ordination  votes. 

M.  You  have  clearly  condemned  me  out  of  our 
own  books.  I  was  not  aware  of  the  teachings  of 
our  Discipline,  or  I  should  have  been  more  careful 
of  my  charges  against  the  Baptists.  I  shall  take 
care  in  future,  and  remember  the  old  proverb,  and 
not  throw  stones  at  my  neighbors,  whom  I  begin  to 
see  are  more  consistent  than  we  are. 

P.  But  I  have  not  done  yet.  I  will  now  prove 
that  the  Baptists  are  more  liberal  as  a  church  than 
you  are.  You  are  well  aware  that  many  of  your 
ministers  and  members  have  been  very  severe  in 
your  denunciations  of  them. 

31.  I  know  we  have  not  been  very  tender  of 
their  feelings;  and  have  endeavored  to  place  them 
in  no  enviable  light  before  the  people,  especially  on 
communion,  calling  them  narrow-minded,  selfish, 
and  bigoted. 

P.  Yes,  that's  a  one-stringed  instrument  some 
of  you  have  played  with  delight.  Whenever  the 
Baptists  would  preach  on  baptism,  against  the  usur- 
pation of  power  by  the  ministry,  or  the  right  of  a 


Sixteenth  Conversation,  279 

church  to  govern  itself,  contending  earnestly  for  the 
rights  of  the  people,  you  have  commenced  fiddling 
away  on  "  com-mu-ni-on,  clos-e  com-mu-ni-on !" 
thus  diverting  the  attention  of  the  people  from  the 
true  issue  between  you.  It  would  have  been  wiser 
to  have  kept  silent  on  a  point  where  you  are  so  very 
vulnerable.  But  to  prove  what  I  said.  You  have 
what  you  call  love-feasts  and  class-meetings.  Will 
you  allow  me  to  come  to  these  meetings  ?  What  is 
your  rule?  We  can  only  determine  the  right  of 
your  practice  by  the  rule  governing  it. 

M.  That  is  fair  and  right.  As  a  Methodist,  I 
believe  in  sticking  to  our  rules:  we  can  only  tell 
what  a  church  believes  by  its  articles  of  faith,  and 
rules  of  practice.  Hence,  we  tell  our  ministers : 
"  You  are  not  to  mend  our  rules,  but  to  keep  them;"  and, 
"  remember,  a  Methodist  preacher  is  to  mind  every  point, 
great  and  small,  in  the  Methodist  Discipline" — P.  62. 
Thus,  you  see,  we  are  clear  on  that  point. 

We  have  no  rule  now,  that  I  can  find,  that  allows 
any  person  to  come  to  our  class-meetings  and  love- 
feasts  but  our  members.  At  one  time  we  did  admit 
strangers  to  our  love-feasts  twice  or  thrice,  with  the 
utmost  caution,  and  no  more,  unless  they  became 
members.  And  as  to  our  class-meetings,  at  every 
other  meeting  we  also  admitted  strangers,  but  these 
only  twice  or  thrice.  But  now  we  have  abolished 
these  rules,  and  of  course  no  stranger  is  allowed  to 
enter  either  our  love-feasts  or  class-meetings.  As 
to  our  love-feasts,  our  own  members  are  required  by 


280  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

the  Discipline  to  "have  quarterly  tickets  of  admission. 
— P.  96.  But  in  many  places  our  preachers  don't 
carry  out  the  rules,  and  hold  open-door  class- 
meetings. 

P.     Now,  how  do  you  receive  members? 

M.  "Let  none  be  admitted  on  trial,  except  they 
are  well  recommended  by  one  you  know,  or  until 
they  have  met  twice  or  thrice  in  class." — Discipline, 
p.  38.  Again :  "  Let  none  be  received  into  the 
church  until  they  are  recommended  by  a  leader 
with  whom  they  have  met  at  least  six  months  on 
trial,  and  have  been  baptized;  and  shall  on  exam- 
ination by  the  minister  in  charge,  before  the  church, 
give  satisfactory  assurances  both  of  the,  correctness 
of  their  faith,  and  their  willingness  to  observe  and 
keep  the  rules  of  the  church.  Nevertheless,  if  a 
member  in  good  standiug  in  any  other  orthodox 
church  shall  desire  to  unite  with  us,  such  applicant 
may,  by  giving  satisfactory  answers  to  the  usual 
inquiries,  be  received  at  once  into  full  fellowship." 
—P.  37. 

P.  Thus,  you  have  to  try  them  six  months,  to  see 
whether  they  will  do  for  church  members.  Your 
very  probation  implies  a  doubt.  They  may  be 
good  Christians,  and  yet  you  will  not  admit  them 
into  full  connexion.  When  you  have  a  "  revival," 
some  of  your  ministers  will  pass  round  with  a  slip 
of  paper  among  the  anxious  to  get  them  to  unite  on 
trial.  They  don't  wait  until  they  are  converted  and 
baptized ;  no !  they  must  first  get  them  committed 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  281 

to  the  Methodist  church,  as  if  that  was  the  one  thing 
needful.  That  is  one  reason  why  some  churches 
object  to  joining  with  you  in  union  meetings.  They 
have  to  wait  for  conversion  and  baptism  before 
church  membership;  but  you  can  pop  an  individual's 
name  down  at  once  as  a  probationer,  without  being 
particular  about  his  conversion.  Should  he  not  suit 
you,  all  that  you  have  to  do,  according  to  your 
Discipline,  is  to  "  drop"  him,  even  without  a  trial. 
The  civil  law  never  "  drops"  any  one  thus. 

M.  Are  we  not  all  probationers?  Our  proba- 
tionary relation  is  only  a  trial.  The  individual  may 
not  like  our  church,  and  we  may  not  like  him;  in 
such  cases  the  copartnership  can  be  dissolved  by 
either  party.  You  forget  that  our  probationers  are 
not  in  the  church.  They  only  occupy  a  vestibule 
relation,  though  they  have  nearly  all  the  privileges 
of  full  members  —  even  the  Lord's  Supper. — Disci- 
pline, p.  32.     How  is  it  with  the  Baptists? 

P.  In  the  Baptist  churches  all  who  have  been 
obedient  to  the  heavenly  calling,  are  looked  upon  as 
good  enough  to  be  admitted  at  once  into  full  fellow- 
ship, and  are  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  a  citizen 
of  the  kingdom,  without  suspicion,  or  fear  of  the 
result.     Which  is  the  most  liberal  and  just? 

M.  I  must  confess  the  Baptists,  in  this  particular, 
are  the  most  consistent.  If  a  man  is  truly  converted 
and  baptized,  he  is  certainly  entitled  to  church 
membership.     I  have,  to  be  frank,  been  at  a  loss  to 


282  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

understand  the  justice  of  our  probationary  system. 
But  I  have  not  troubled  myself  much  about  it. 

P.  Am  I  unjust  or  uncharitable  when  I  say,  it 
appears  to  me  that  you  think  more  highly  of  your 
church,  and  guard  more  carefully  your  love-feasts 
and  class-meetings,  -than  you  do  the  Lord's  table! 
You  will  not  admit  members  into  your  church  with- 
out six  months'  trial  —  that  is,  those  who  have  never 
been  members  of  any  church  —  and  none  to  your 
class-meetings  and  love-feasts;  and  yet  you^  invite 
all  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Do  you  not  thus  place 
the  inventions  of  men  above  the  institutions  of 
Christ? 

M.  It  does  look  like  it ;  but  it's  all  according  to  our 
Discipline. 

P.  Now  let  us  look  at  your  general  conference. 
Who  compose  it?     Head,  if  }-ou  please. 

M.  The  preachers.  "  The  general  conference 
shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every  thirty 
members  of  each  annual  conference,"  etc.,  says  our 
Discipline,  p.  45. 

P.     And  who  compose  your  annual  conferences  ? 

M.     "  All  the  traveling  preachers." — P.  48. 

P.  Thus,  you  see,  your  general  and  annual  con- 
ferences are  composed  exclusively  of  preachers. 
Your  laymen,  however  intelligent,  have  no  voice 
there.  Your  general  conference  has  "  full  powers 
to  make  rules  and  regulations  "  for  your  church. — 
P.  46. 

M.     But  there  are  limitations  and  restrictions. 


Sixteenth  Conversation*  283 

P.  Certainly;  but  every  limitation  and  restric- 
tion, except  changing  your  articles  of  religion,  can 
be  swept  away  by  a  recommendation  of  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  members  [preachers]  of  the  several 
annual  conferences,  who  shall  be  present  and  vote, 
and  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
general  conference. — P.  48. 

One  of  your  members  writes  to  The  Methodist  as 
follows  :  "  Our  laity  have  no  representation  in  the 
legislative  assemblies  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  Delegates  to  the  general  conference  are 
the  clergy  —  they  represent  the  clergy  of  the  annual 
conferences.  A  Christian  church  should  be  strictly  a 
government  of  principle  in  relation  to  the  governed. 
The  right  to  be  represented  where  law  is  made 
to  govern,  is  not  only  essential  to  civil  freedom,  but 
is  equally  the  basis  of  religious  liberty.  Is  there 
any  reason  why  any  class  of  men  should  assume  the 
right  to  disfranchise  another  class  of  men,  and  claim 
to  be  their  legislators,  administrators  and  judges  of 
all  the  laws,  and  every  possible  application  of  them  ? 
In  withholding  from  our  laity  a  right  of  voice  in 
their  government,  it  deprives  them  of  the  stronger 
motives  for  activity  and  liberality." 

Thus,  your  preachers  have  "  full  power  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  [your]  church. "  And 
why  not,  when  they  formed  the  church  —  sixty 
preachers,  who  met  at  Baltimore,  Md.,  1784.  The 
minutes  of  that  conference  have  this  remarkable 
admission  —  "  At  this  conference  it  was  unanimously 


284  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

agreed,  that  our  circumstances  made  it  expedient 
for  us  to  become  a  separate  body,  under  the  denom- 
ination of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  *  * 
*  We  formed  ourselves  into  an  independent 
church."     Look  at  it :  we  [sixty  preachers]  formed 

OURSELVES  INTO  THE   METHODIST   EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  ! 

"What  are  the  preachers  but  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  ? 

M.     Our  preachers  the  church  !     Certainly  not. 

P.  I  will  give  }-ou  a  few  facts  to  ponder  over. 
In  1844  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  divided 
by  geographical  lines,  and  two  churches  formed, 
the  church  North  and  the  church  South.  The 
ministers  divided  the  church  by  mutual  agreement. 
Besides  the  churches,  schools,  colleges,  etc.,  etc., 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  was  entitled 
to  some  $400,000  from  the  "  Book  Concern."  The 
Northern  church  refused  to  pay  it  over.  The  church 
South  instituted  suit  to  recover  it.  The  best  legal 
talent  was  employed  on  both  sides.  The  church 
South  took  the  position  that  the  general  conference, 
composed  of  bishops  and  traveling  preachers,  only 
was  the  church,  and  hence  had  the  right  to  divide 
it,  and  that  the  agreement  entered  into  was  binding 
in  law.  I  have  not  time  to  give  you  the  pleas  of 
the  counsel  for  the  church  South;  besides,  they  are 
substantially  embodied  in  the  decision  of  the  Court, 
as  rendered  by  Justice  Nelson,  which  is  as  follows  : 
"  The  Methodist  Episcopal  church  of  the  United 
States  was  established,  in  its  government,  doctrine 


Sixteenth  Conversation,  285 

and  discipline,  by  a  general  conference  of  the  travel- 
ing preachers  in  this  communion,  in  1784.  Down 
to  that  time,  the  Methodist  societies  in  America  had 
been  governed  by  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  this 
denomination  of  Christians,  through  the  agency  of 
his  assistants.  During  this  year,  the  entire  govern- 
ment was  taken  into  the  hands  of  the  traveling 
preachers,  with  his  approbation  and  assent.  They 
organized  it,  established  its  doctrines  and  discipline, 
appointed  the  several  authorities  —  superintendents 
or  bishops,  ministers  and  preachers  —  to  administer 
its  polity,  and  promulgate  its  doctrines  and  teach- 
ings throughout  the  land.  From  that  time  to  this, 
the  source  and  fountain  of  all  its  temporal  power 
are  the  traveling  preachers  in  this  connection  in 
general  conference  assembled.  The  lay  members  of 
the  church  have  no  part  or  connection  with  its  govern- 
mental organization,  and  never  had.  The  traveling 
preachers  comprise  the  embodiment  of  its  power, 
ecclesiastical  and  temporal ;  and  when  assembled 
in  general  conference,  according  to  the  usages  and 
discipline  of  the  church,  represent  themselves,  and 
have  no  constituents." — Appendix  to  Property  Case, 
pp.  10,  11. 

Both  parties  submitted  to  this  decision.     ~No  bill  of  4 
exceptions   was   filed.     Have  I  not   sustained   my 
assertion,  that  the  general  conference  is  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  church  ? 

M.     I  was  aware  that  our  ministers  made  our 
laws,  and  it  has  caused  a  great  deal  of  disaffection 


286  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

and  disturbance  in  our  church;  but  really,  the  idea 
that  they  are  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is 
new  to  me.  Yet  I  can  not  see  how  I  can  deny  it, 
when  they  have  put  in  the  claim  themselves,  and  it 
has  been  sustained  by  the  law.  How  is  it  with  the 
Baptists  ? 

P.  "  Every  Baptist  church  is  a  sovereign  demo- 
cracy, on  which  devolves  the  duty  of  executing  the 
laws  of  Christ;  and  every  Baptist  feels  that  he  is  a 
sovereign  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Every  Baptist  church  is  complete  in  itself.  All 
Baptist  associations,  conventions,  etc.,  are  repre- 
sentative bodies. 

"  Baptist  associations  are  made  up  of  delegates 
from  churches,  consisting  of  the  pastor,  and  two  or 
more  laymen  chosen  for  the  purpose.  Pastors, 
however,  are  not  essential  to  associations,  but  are 
always  sent  as  a  part  of  the  delegation,  if  the  church 
has  one  at  the  time.  Associations,  like  committees 
and  councils,  have  no  authority  over  the  churches. 
Meetings  of  State  conventions,  missionary,  Bible, 
publication  societies,  etc.,  are  of  similar  character, 
originating  in  the  church,  and  deriving  all  their 
consequence  from  her.  Any  society  or  convention 
for  church  purposes,  not  dependent  upon  the  church, 
is  a  departure  from  the  Divine  plan  for  promoting 
Christianity  upon  earth." 

There  is  one  thing  more :  Have  you  the  right  to 
call  and  settle  your  own  pastor  ? 

M.    JSTo.     Our  Discipline  gives  the  bishops  the 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  287 

power  of  sending  the  preachers  where  they  please. 
(P.  86.)     But  sometimes  we  petition. 

P.  But  what  right  have  you  to  petition  ?  It  is 
not  in  your  Discipline.  You  are  hound  to  receive 
the  minister  sent,  or  rebel. 

31.  I  know  we  have  no  right  to  petition,  and 
that  it  is  optionary  with  the  bishop  to  grant  or 
refuse  our  request.  Ministers  have  been  sent  back 
against  the  remonstrance  of  the  people. 

P.  Every  Baptist  church  calls  and  settles  its  own 
pastor,  each  member  having  a  vote  in  the  question; 
and  no  minister  becomes  a  member  of  that  church 
without  being  received  by  a  vote  of  the  church. 

Did  you  ever  receive  a  minister  in  that  way? 
No;  he  comes  and  takes  charge  of  your  society  or 
church,  presides  at  your  meetings,  appoints  or 
removes  your  class  leaders  at  pleasure,  and  performs 
other  things,  without  ever  being  received  by  vote 
among  you.  His  position  as  a  minister  entitles  him 
to  that. 

Now,  in  face  of  all  the  foregoing  facts,  are  not  the 
Baptists  more  liberal  than  you  are  ?  Do  not  they 
possess  more  of  the  elements  of  Christian  liberty 
and  liberality  than  your  church? 

M.  From  the  evidence  before  me,  I  must  admit 
the  truth  of  what  you  say.  You  have  shown  me 
things  in  our  Discipline  that  unequivocally  condemn 
all  our  claims  to  a  liberal  church.  The  fact  is,  I 
was  not  aware  of  their  existence  until  now. 

P.    There,  again,  you  are  not  alone.    I  once  heard 


288  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

one  of  your  ministers  proclaim  a  copy  of  your  Disci- 
pline a  forgery,  because  there  were  things  quoted 
from  it  by  an  opponent  in  debate  that  he  could  not 
possibly  believe  were  there !  But  I  have  shown  you 
no  more  than  what  you  say  your  Discipline  main- 
tains, and  what  your  own  members  have  charged 
-against  your  church,  and  who  have  left  it  on  account 
thereof. 

Kay,  at  this  day  a  strong  effort  is  being  made  by 
many  of  your  leading  members  to  get  a  change  in 
your  government.  Whether  it  will  fail,  as  preced- 
ing ones  have  done,  remains  to  be  seen. 

It  is  amusing  to  hear  some  of  your  ministers  try 
to  prove  that  you  have  a  liberal  church,  when 

1.  All  laws  governing  your  church  are  made  by 
your  preachers. — Dis.,  p.  46. 

2.  Your  general  conference  is  composed  exclu- 
sively of  preachers. — P.  45. 

3.  Your  annual  conferences  are  composed 
exclusively  of  preachers. — 48. 

4.  Your  bishops  are  elected  to  office  by  preachers. 
—86. 

5.  Your  presiding  elders  appointed  by  preachers 
—  the  bishops. — 90. 

6.  Your  missionary  and  tract  societies,  and  your 
printing  and  bookselling  departments,  controlled 
by  your  preachers. — 236-248. 

7.  Your  candidates  for  the  itinerancy  received  by 
the  preachers. — 49-50. 

8.  Your  preachers  appointed  to  the  stations  and 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  289 

circuits  by  your  preachers  (bishops),  without  any 
right  on  your  part  to  reject.  You  must  do  it  by 
rebellion. — 86. 

9.  Your  quarterly  meetings  presided  over  by 
preachers. — 53. 

10.  Your  class  leaders  appointed  and  removed  at 
pleasure  by  your  preachers. — 96. 

11.  Your  stewards  and  trustees  nominated  for 
office  by  your  preachers. — 55,  262. 

12.  Your  probationers  received  on  trial  by  your 
preachers. — 96. 

13.  Your  members  tried  by  a  committee  appointed 
and  presided  over  by  preachers. — 118. 

14.  Your  preachers  tried  by  preachers. — 110-118. 
Now,  in  face  of  all  these  facts  of  your  Discipline, 

how  can  you  say  the  Methodist  Episcopal  is  a  free 
and  liberal  church,  and  denounce  the  Baptists  as 
illiberal  and  intolerant?  No  wonder  that  so  many 
of  your  preachers  are  such  earnest  defenders  of  your 
polity,  and  so  bitterly  opposed  to  all  change  in  your 
government.  Strange  it  is  that  so  many  of  you 
believe  it,  and  quietly  submit  to  it,  and  let  the 
preachers  have  it  all  their  own  way. 

But  I  see  we  shall  not  be  able  to  finish  our 
examination  of  the  Baptists  to-night ;  so  suppose 
we  devote  another  evening  to  the  subject. 

M.    It  will  be  very  agreeable  to  me ;    and  you 
may  expect  me  early,  for  I  am  deeply  interested  in 
the  result.     Good  night. 
13 


Seventeenth  Conversation. 


The  Baptists  Examined — {Concluded?) 


[HIS  evening  brother  C.  was  earlier  in  his 

visit  than   usual ;  and  had  hardly  taken 

his  seat  before  he  introduced  the  subject 

under  investigation,  by  saying: 

M.     "Well,  brother  E.,  this  evening  brings  us  to 

the  close  of  our  examinations;  and  I  am  anxious  to 

hear  your  concluding  remarks  on  the  Baptists.    Let 

me  have  all  you  can  say  in  their  favor. 

P.  That  is  impossible  now ;  so  I  will  give  you  a 
few  facts  touching  some  of  the  leading  and  distin- 
guishing features  or  characteristics  of  the  Baptists; 
but  these  will  be  briefly  stated. 

31.  Don't  be  too  brief;  for  I  am  more  than  ever 
anxious  to  hear  and  learn. 

P.  In  the  first  place,  then,  let  me  give  you  the 
following  statement  of  Baptist  principles,  from  the 
able  pen  of  Br.  Armitage  : 

"  The  Divine  truths  which  have  maintained  the 


Seventeenth  Conversation.  291 

integrity  of  the  Baptist  churches,  as  distinct  from 
all  other  religionists,  are  these,  namely: 

"  1.  That  the  Word  of  God,  as  found  in  the 
inspired  manuscripts,  is  the  only  rule  hy  which  the 
church  is  to  be  governed,  edified,  and  built  up  in  its 
doctrines,  ordinances  and  discipline;  and  that  no 
creed,  liturgy,  rubric,  catechism,  decree,  law,  or 
tradition,  is  to  be  set  up  as  of  any  authority  what- 
ever, in  any  department  connected  with  the  up- 
building, defence,  and  perpetuity  of  Christ's  ran- 
somed church. 

"  2.  That  his  church  is  composed  only  of  regen- 
erate persons,  and  that,  therefore,  all  interference 
in  its  affairs  on  the  part  of  the  state,  or  of  civil 
rulers,  is  an  unwarranted  dictation,  oppression,  and 
tyranny,  that  must  not  be  brooked,  but  is  to  be 
resisted,  broken,  and  shaken  off  by  all  true  lovers 
of  soul  liberty,  on  the  ground  that  Christ,  and  Christ 
only,  is  the  "  head  over  all  things  to  the  church." 

"  3.  That  the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water  is 
the  only  baptism  whereby  men  can  be  admitted  into 
fellowship  with  Christ's  church :  therefore,  that  all 
other  symbols  of  the  mystic  union  are  spurious,  and 
deviations  from  Christ's  appointed  badge  of  disciple- 
ship  ;  and  are  to  be  rebuked  as  human  innovations 
upon  the  simplicity  of  primitive  Christianity. 

"  4.  That  only  those  persons  in  whom  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  wrought  a  radical  renovation  of  the  soul, 
by  faith  in  Jesus,  are,  or  can  be  entitled,  under  any 
pretext  whatever,  to  a  place  is  a  gospel  church  as 


292  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

members  thereof;  and  that  the  introduction  of  any- 
other  class,  by  virtue  of  parentage,  or  ecclesiastical 
decretal,  is  a  direct  prostitution  of  the  purposes  for 
which  the  Founder  of  the  Church  established  it  in 
the  earth. 

"5.  That  regenerated  persons  thus  buried  with 
Christ  in  the  first  ordfc^nce  of  the  Gospel,  are  the 
only  persons  who  do  1$k  can  possess  the  requisite 
qualifications  which  entitle  Christ's  people  to  the 
benefits  of  communion,  watchcare,  and  discipline  in 
his  church;  so  that  any  reversal  of  this  order,  is  to 
dispute,  nullify  and  supersede  his  authority  in  his 
own  house.     And  — 

"  6.  That  the  church  of  Christ  is  a  simple  brother- 
hood of  renewed  spirits,  walking  in  the  paths  of 
gospel  obedience;  that  they  all  stand  upon  a  perfect 
parity  in  the  household  of  faith,  under  the  legislation 
and  leadership  of  their  Elder  Brother;  and  that, 
therefore,  he  disallows  among  them  all  orders  and 
distinctions  that  savor  of  a  human  hierarchy,  and  all 
ecclesiastical  domination  whatever,  as  inconsistent 
with  the  freedom  and  right  of  self-government,  which 
inheres  in  each  individual  congregation  of  his  elect, 
as  composing  the  church  of  God  in  any  given  place. 

"  These  truths  are  broad  and  fundamental  and 
plain,  as  "  Christ  taught  them,"  and  yet,  with  the 
exception  of  one  or  two  points,  they  are  held  by 
none  but  Baptists  in  all  their  bearings  practically. 
They  ramify  through  all  the  ground-work  and  life 
of  Christianity.     And  so  far  from  being  considered 


Seventeenth  Conversation.  293 

hy  the  Christian  world  as  small  point-:,  external  and 
non-essential,  they  have  drawn  a  broad   belt  acr< 
tin;  bounds  of  Christendom,  and  divided  the  Christian 
world  into  two.     There  is  not  another  doctrine  of 

Christianity  of  which  this  can  be  said.  The  one 
question  as  to  what  material  constitutes  the  church, 
and  by  what  law  it  is  to  be  built  Up  into  the  living 
temple,  has  agitated  the  church  for  fifteen  hundred 
years,  and  troubles  its  waters  more  to-day  than  ever 
before.  It  has  consumed  the  best  Learning  and 
talent  of*  Christianity.  Millions  of  the  best  minds 
are  devoted  to  the  theme  to-day.  Every  pulpit  and 
press  in  the  British  empire  is  handling  the  subject, 
with  its  embarrassments  and  responsibilities,  and  it 
is  engendering  nearly  as  much  discussion  and  pro- 
found feeling  in  the  Republic  itself.  The  man  who 
tells  you  that  the  only  thing  involved  here  is  a  mere 
external  rite,  is  as  blind  as  he  well  can  he  to  the 
times  in  which  he  lives.  The  truths  involved  are 
precisely  those,  and  those  only,  which  necessitate 
the  existence  of  the  Baptist  world  on  one  side,  as 
distinct  from  all  other  Christians,  and  the  Pedobap- 
tist  world  on  the  other  side,  as  distinct  from  ns." 

M.  Those  are  certainly  grand  fundamental  prin- 
ciples. Xo  wonder  the  Baptists  contend  so  earnestly 
for    their    su  Really,  if  I   were   a   Baptist,  I 

should  feel  proud  of  them. 

1\  They  are  the  great  truths  of  Christianity. 
But  let  us  go  a  little  hack  in  history,  and  learn 
something  more  of  the  Baptists: 


294  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

"  A  departure  from  the  Scriptures,  in  respect  to 
baptism,  was  hardly  sanctioned  in  the  church,  when, 
with  the  conscious  weakness  of  error,  it  summoned 
persecution  to  its  aid.  In  413,  A.D.,  re-baptism,  as 
it  was  termed,  was  forbidden  throughout  the  Roman 
Empire,  under  penalty  of  death.  In  the  following 
year  the  Council  of  Carthage,  of  which  Augustine 
was  the  president,  decided:  'We  will  that  whoso- 
ever denies  that  little  children,  by  baptism,  are 
freed  from  perdition  and  eternally  saved,  that  they 
be  accursed.'  At  an  earlier  clay  than  this,  the  same 
spirit  had  prevailed,  but  it  was  not  until  the  church 
received  protection  of  the  emperors,  that  it  could 
display  itself  in  force. 

"  Thus  early  in  the  school  of  persecution,  and  at 
the  point  of  their  '  new  conception/  did  Baptists 
learn  the  great  principle  of  soul  liberty.  That  les- 
son they  have  never  forgotten.  Under  varying  names 
—  in  widely  distant  lands  —  through  long  and  weary 
centuries  —  they  have  toiled  and  suffered  in  its 
defence.  Denied  a  freedom  for  themselves,  they 
have  answered  to  the  wrong  by  giving  freedom  to 
all  mankind.  Theirs  is  a  history  stained  with  no 
blood  but  their  own ;  lighted  by  no  martyring 
flames,  save  those  in  which  their  faithful  perished. 
Others  have  contended  as  stoutly  for  their  own 
chosen  creed,  but  none  so  firmly  for  the  creeds  of 
all.     In  this  they  stand  alone. 

"  Can  you  point  me  to  a  creed  of  the  Reformation 
which  does  not  confer  upon  the  magistrate  a  power 


Sixteenth  Conversation.  295 

in  religion  ?  Luther  says  of  false  teachers  :  '  I  am 
very  averse  to  the  shedding  of  blood.  'Tis  sufficient 
they  should  be  banished,  or  put  under  restraint  as 
madmen.'  Neither  Melancthon,  Bucer,  or  Beza 
can  be  acquitted  of  sentiments  either  similar  or 
worse.  And  Calvin  —  would  to  God  the  great 
man's  memory  were  free  from  the  wrongs  of  Ser- 
vetus — Cranmer  could  suffer  unto  death  with  heroic 
firmness  for  his  own  faith,  but  could  wring  from  the 
tender  youth  of  the  reluctant  Edward,  a  warrant  for 
the  death  of  those  who  differed;  a  warrant  signed 
with  tears,  and  coupled  with  a  clause  like  Pilate's.* 
We  'honor  the  Scotch  churches,' and  dwell  with 
sadness  on  the  story  of  their  wrongs;  but  the  suffer- 
ings they  euclured  were  only  such  as  they  com- 
mended unsparingly  to  others.  John  Knox  would 
have  burned  an  adversary  of  'God's  eternal  pre- 
destination' as  coolly  as  you  would  drown  a  kitten. 
Hear  him,  in  answer  to  one  of  those  Baptist  pleas 
for  soul-liberty  which,  early  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, was  published  in  Great  Britain.  Alluding  to 
persecuting  Christians,  the  Baptist  writes:  'Be 
these,  I  pray  you,  the  sheep  whom  God  lias  set  forth 
in  the  midst  of  wolves.  Can  the  sheep  persecute 
the  wolf?'  And  Knox  replies:  '  I  will  not  now  so 
much  labor  to  confute  by  my  pen,  as  my  full  pur- 
pose is  to  lay  the  same  to  thy  charge,  if  I  shall 
apprehend  thee  in  any  commonwealth  where  justice 

*  Hume,  vol.  iii.,  p.  853. 


296  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

against  blasphemers  may  be  ministered  as  God's 
Word  requireth.' 

"  Nearly  a  hundred  years  later,  when  the  Baptists 
of  London  had  published  their  sentiments  to  the 
world,  and  when  Roger  Williams  was  battling  for 
religious  freedom  with  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts, 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  Scotland,  forbade  '  all  printers  in  the  kingdom  from 
printing  or  re-printing  any  confession  of  faith,  or 
protestation,  or  reason  pro  or  contra,  without  war- 
rant, subscribed  by  the  clerk  of  the  assembly." 
Four  years  later,  Roman  Catholics  were  ordered  to 
renounce  their  '  obstinacy/  under  penalty  of  banish- 
ment or  imprisonment. 

"  Nor  was  it  different  in  this  western  world. 
Puritans,  Churchmen  and  Catholics  alike  joined  in 
persecution.  The  best  example  of  toleration  was  fur- 
nished by  the  Catholics  of  Maryland  ;  but  soul  liberty 
was  defended  by  Baptists  alone.  In  due  time  they 
won  some  converts;  but  in  Rhode  Island,  in  Massa- 
chusetts, in  Pennsylvania,  in  Virginia,  and  through- 
out the  land,  the  work  was  mainly  their  own.  The 
first  Continental  Congress  had  not  been  ten  days  in 
session,  when  an  agent  of  the  Baptists  knocked  at. 
the  door  of  the  old  Carpenters'  Hall,  to  ask  that 
freedom  of  conscience  might  be  given,  not  to  them- 
selves alone,  but  to  all  the  dwellers  in  the  land. 

"  Well  does  George  Bancroft  declare,  with  a 
candor  which  does  credit  to  his  mind  and  heart, 
'  freedom  of  conscience,  unlimited  freedom  of  mind, 


Seventeenth  Conversation*  297 

was,  from  first,  the  trophy  of  the  Baptists.'*  And 
again;  'The  party  was  trodden  under  foot  with 
foul  reproaches  and  most  arrogant  scorn ;  and  its 
history  is  written  in  the  blood  of  myriads  of  the 
German  peasantry;  but  its  principles,  safe  in  their 
immortality,  escaped  with  Roger  Williams  to  Provi- 
dence; and  his  colony  is  the  witness  that  naturally 
the  paths  of  the  Baptists  are  paths  of  freedom, 
pleasantness,  and  peace.'f 

"  The  fact  is  indubitable,  but  its  connection  with 
our  peculiar  views  of  baptism  is  often  overlooked. 
Our  peculiarities  here  awakened  persecution,  and 
persecution  taught  us  the  value  of  soul  liberty. 

"A  similar  argument  might  be  urged  in  relation 
to  other  truths.  One  hundred  years  ago,  Baptists 
stood  alone  in  the  defence  of  a  converted  church 
membership.  Infant  sprinkling  admitted  members 
into  the  church  without  even  a  profession  of  godli- 
ness. Our  views  of  Baptism  forbade  it.  Hence, 
baptism  became  the  gate  in  which  men  stood  to 
battle  for  a  spiritual  church. "J 

"  That  Baptists  are  of  ancient  origin,  maybe  seen, 
not  only  in  the  Scriptures,  but  also  in  ecclesiastical 
history,  imperfectly  and  partially  as  it  has  yet  been 
written,"  as  it  may  be  seen  in  the  works  of  Lim- 
borch,  Mosheim,  Meander,  and  a  host  of  other  Pedo- 
baptist  writers.  Within  the  present  century  the 
King  of  Holland   selected  his   chaplain,  Dr.  J.  J. 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.,  p.  66.  t  Ibid,  p.  459. 

X  "  Baptists  Not  Exclusive,"  pp.  44-48. 

13* 


298  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

Dermont,  and  Dr.  TJpejj,  Professor  of  Theology  at 
the  University  of  Groningen,  both  of  the  Dutch  Re- 
formed Church,  to  draw  up  a  history  of  the  Dutch 
Baptists.  In  the  authentic  volume  which  they 
prepared  and  published  at  Breda,  in  1819,  they 
arrive  at  the  following  deliberate  conclusion : 

"  We  have  now  seen  that  the  Baptists,  who  were 
formerly  called  Anabaptists,  and,  in  later  times, 
Mennonites,  were  the  original  Waldenses,  and  who 
loner  in  the  history  of  the  church  received  the  honor 
of  that  origin.  On  this  account  the  Baptists  may  be 
considered  as  the  only  Christian  community  which  has 
stood  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  a  Cliristian 
society  which  has  preserved  pure  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  through  all  ages.  The  perfectly  correct  exter- 
nal and  internal  economy  of  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion tends  to  confirm  the  truth,  disputed  by  the 
Romish  church,  that  the  reformation  brought  about 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  in  the  highest  degree 
necessary,  and,  at  the  same  time,  goes  to  refute  the 
erroneous  notion  of  the  Catholics  that  their  communion  is 
the  most  ancient." 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  these  learned  men 
were  not  Baptists ;  that  they  proclaimed  the  result 
of  their  diligent  research  in  the  ear  of  a  king,  who 
listened  unwillingly  to  their  conclusions.  Let  it 
also  be  remembered,  that  as  a  result  of  their  investi- 
gation, the  government  of  Holland  offered  to  the  Baptist 
churches  in  the  kingdom  the  support  of  the  State ;  but, 
true  to  their  principles,  they  declined  it.* 

*  "  Eaptists  not  Exclusive." 


Seventeenth  Conversation.  299 

M.  That  is  certainly  a  noble  tribute  to  their 
independence  and  loyalty  to  their  principles. 

P.  The  Baptists  have  ever  been  uuflinching 
defenders  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  In  the 
times  of  Constantine  the  Donatists  asked,  "What 
has  the  emperor  to  do  with  the  church  ?  "What 
have  Christians  to  do  with  kings  ?  What  have 
bishops  to  do  at  court  ?"  For  this  they  have  been 
fined,  whipped,  imprisoned,  banished,  and  martyred. 
Pedobaptists  have  been  their  bitterest  persecutors. 

As  I  have  already  shown  you,  on  May  2nd,  1648, 
the  Presbyterians,  having  the  ascendancy  in  the 
British  Parliament,  "  passed  a  law  against  heretics, 
which  is  hardly  to  be  paralleled  among  Protestants. 
One  of  the  errors  specified  was,  the  holding  that  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  unlawful  and  void,  and  that 
such  person  ought  to  be  baptized  again.  The  per- 
son implicated  was,  on  confession,  to  *  renounce  it 
in  the  public  congregation,'  or,  'in  case  of  refusal, 
be  committed  to  prison  till  he  find  sureties  that  he 
shall  not  publish  the  said  error  or  errors  any  more.'  " 
— NeaVs  History  of  the  Puritans,  part  iii.,  ch.  10. 

M.  That  law  is  almost  equal  to  perpetual 
imprisonment,  at  least  to  the  poor. 

P.  True.  And  now  let  us  look  at  Pedobaptist 
intolerance  in  this  country.  As  early  as  November, 
1664,  in  Boston,  Mass.,  a  law  was  passed  for  the 
suppression  of  anti-church  and  state  sects,  the 
penalty  of  which  is  as  follows:  "It  is  ordered  and 
agreed,  that  if  any  person  or  persons  within  this 


300  Conversatio7is  on  Baptism. 

jurisdiction  shall  either  openly  oppose  or  condemn 
the  baptizing  of  infants,  or  go  about  secretly  to 
seduce  others  from  the  approbation  or  use  thereof; 
or  shall  purposely  depart  from  the  congregation  at 
the  ministration  of  the  ordinance,  *  *  every 
such  person  or  persons  shall  be  sentenced  to  banish- 
ment." 

Another  law  was  passed  prohibiting  all  conversa- 
tion of  the  common  people  with  an}7  of  those  here- 
tics, such  as  Quakers  and  Baptists ;  and  persons 
giving  them  entertainment  were  to  be  fined  five 
pounds.  They  were  debarred  from  citizenship,  and 
not  allowed  to  make  use  of  a  house  of  public  wor- 
ship, without  license  from  the  authorities,  under 
penalty  of  forfeiture  of  house  and  land  whereon  it 
stood. 

One  poor  man,  for  refusing  to  have  his  child  bap- 
tized, and  who  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  infant 
baptism  was  an  anti-Christian  ordinance,  was  tied 
up  and  whipped. 

On  the  8th  of  March,  1680,  the  doors  of  the  First 
Baptist  Church  of  Boston  were  nailed  up  by  the 
marshal,  and  a  notice  posted  thereon,  warning  all 
persons  against  holding  any  meetings,  or  opening 
the  doors,  "  as  the}7  will  answer  the  contrary  at  their 
peril. 

Messrs.  Clarke,  Holmes,  and  Crandall  were 
apprehended  by  a  constable,  near  Lynn,  on  Lord's 
day,  while  Mr.  Clarke  was  preaching.  The  court 
fined  Mr.  Clarke  £25,  Mr.  Holmes  £30,  and  Mr. 


Seventeenth  Conversation.  301 

Crandall  £5,  or  be  publicly  whipped.  Mr.  Holmes 
was  whipped  thirty  stripes,  and  in  such  an  unmer- 
ciful manner,  that  for  a  great  many  days  he  could 
not  rest  but  upon  his  knees  and  elbows. 

In  Virginia  three  ministers  were  tried  for  "preach- 
ing the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  contrary  to  the 
statute  in  that  case  provided,  and  consequently 
disturbers  of  the  peace." 

Rev.  Mr.  Marshall,  a  traveling  Baptist  preacher, 
was  put  in  the  stocks  on  a  warm  summer's  day  for 
his  heresy  and  aggression  on  parish  lines,  and  was 
afterwards  imprisoned  in  "Windham  jail,  Conn., 
where,  it  is  said,  the  strange  record  of  his  indict- 
ment remains :  "  for  preaching  the  Gospel  contrary  to 
law  r 

These  are  but  a  few  instances  of  cruelty  that 
might  be  enumerated,  transacted  in  boasted  New 
England,  and  by  our  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional friends. 

Let  me  refer  you  now  to  the  persecutions  in 
Sweden  within  the  last  fifteen  years.  In  Stock- 
holm, Sweden,  where  Lutheranism  is  the  state 
religion,  the  court  preacher,  Wenshom,  accom- 
panied by  police  officers,  entered  the  house  of  Mr. 
Forsell  and  baptized  by  force  his  little  child, 
six  months  old.  At  another  time  the  authorities 
came  down  on  two  poor  families,  seized  from  each 
their  only  cow,  and  sold  them  at  public  auction, 
to  pay  the  district  sergeant  for  carrying  off  their 
children  to  be  sprinkled,  and  to  pay  the  priest  his 


302  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

fee.  In  many  oases  Baptist  parents  have  had  their 
children  taken  from  them  by  the  policeman,  carried 
to  the  priest,  and  forcibly  baptized.  Baptist  minis- 
ters have  been  imprisoned  and  fined  for  preaching 
the  Gospel  not  according  to  law.  Fifteen  brethren 
and  sisters  were  imprisoned  on  bread  and  water  as 
a  punishment  for  taking  the  Lord's  Supper  out  of 
the  state  church. 

Trials  and  persecutions  of  various  kinds  followed 
those  who  thus  dare  to  obey  God  rather  than  man. 
They  were  summoned  before  tribunals,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  fined,  imprisoned  on  bread  and  water, 
and  often  the  rites  of  marriage  were  denied  to  those 
Baptists  who  were  unable  to  pay  a  fee  sufficiently 
large  to  overcome  the  scruples  of  the  priests.  The 
Lutheran  priests  refused  to  perform  the  marriage 
ceremony  for  those  who  were  not  communicants  in 
the  state  church;  and  ministers  of  any  other  church 
are  forbidden  to  perform  this  ceremony  under 
penalty  of  three  years'  imprisonment  in  a  fortress,  at 
hard  labor. 

Dr.  Steane,  an  Englishman,  who  visited  Swe- 
den, writes:  "Their  baptisms  have  to  be  stealthily 
administered  on  some  lone  sea-shore,  or  in  a  hidden 
nook  of  some  inland  lake,  where  no  hostile  eye  may 
see  them,  and  no  lurking  policeman  spring  upon 
them.  Some  have  been  baptized  since  we  have 
been  here,  but  the  blessed  deed,  as  though  it  had 
been  the  perpetration  of  a  great  crime,  was  done  at 
midnight,  and  so  secretly  that  even  we  heard  noth- 
ing of  it  till  afterward." 


Seventeenth  Conversation,  303 

At  one  place  Mr.  Wiberg  was  sitting  quietly  one 
morning,    explaining   the    Word  of  God   to  some 
friends,  when  soon  the  house  was  filled  with  enemies 
of  God  and  all   righteousness.     They  pushed   him 
oft*  the  chair  on  which  he  sat,  giving  him  repeated 
blows  on  the   head  and  pulling  out  his  hair  by  the 
roots.     They  then  dragged  him  out  of  the  house  to 
another  place,  where   they  recommenced   striking 
and  kicking  him.     They  then  took  him  to  the  dis- 
trict sergeant,  who  had  him  placed  in  the  county 
prison.     It  was  soon   noised  abroad  that  he  was  in 
prison,  and   the  yard  was  soon  filled  with  people, 
who    came    to    see    the    infamous    "  baptizcr."     So 
clamorous  was  the  mob  to  see  him,  that  the  sergeant 
had   him   brought   out  before   them,  when  he  was 
made  the  butt  of  their  scoffs,  jeers,  and    ridicule. 
Some  swore  and  cursed  him,  while  others  laughed 
at  him.     One  old  gentleman  spat  in  his  face,  and 
said  he  ought  to  be  destroyed.     But  so  great  was 
his  joy  that  he  had  been  counted  worthy  to  suffer 
reproach  for  the  cause  of  his  Master,  that  he  could 
not  refrain  from  singing  songs  of  praise  and  speak- 
ing  the  word  to  others  within  the  prison.     When 
his  enemies  heard  this,  they  begged  the  sergeant  to 
have   him   sent   to  the   provincial   penitentiary  that 
same  evening.     They  arrived  there  with  him  about 
midnight.     Here  he  was  met  by  the  jail-keeper  with 
curses.     They  then  proceeded  to  clip  his  hair  close 
to  his  head,  stripped  him  of  his  clothes,  and  drench- 
ed him  with  cold  water ;    after  which,  they  put  on 


304  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

Lira  a  prisoner's  dress,  of  very  coarse,  thin,  gray 
material,  and  threw  him  into  a  dark  cell,  where,  as 
the  weather  was  very  cold,  he  was  seized  with  a 
violent  chill.  From  this  place  he  was  removed  to 
a  cell  where  he  could  see,  where  he  remained  three 
days,  after  which  he  was  driven  on  a  prisoner's  car 
to  his  native  place  to  be  set  at  liberty.  After  this, 
several  times  was  he  pursued  with  loaded  guns,  and 
when  going  out  to  preach  with  others  they  were 
often  obliged  to  lie  concealed  during  the  day,  and 
hold  their  meetings  at  the  midnight  hour.* 

This  is  but  one  scene  of  the  sufferings  the  Bap- 
tists of  Sweden  have  had  to  pass  through :  and  all 
the  result  of  Pedobaptist  intolerance,  the  Lutheran 
priests  being  the  chief  instigators.  But  God  has 
wonderfully  blessed  them.  On  September  21st, 
1848,  the  first  Baptist  church,  consisting  of  six  mem- 
bers, was  organized  in  Sweden.  There  are  now  ten 
associations,  one  hundred  and  eighty-three  churches, 
and  about  twelve  thousand  members.  Last  year, 
one  minister  baptized  seven  hundred. 

And  the  glorious  work  which  God  has  done  in 
Sweden,  has  had  a  reflex  influence  on  the  Baptists 
of  the  United  States ;  for  several  hundred  converted 
Swedes  have  come  to  this  country,  and  are  among 
the  very  best  of  our  foreign  population,  standing  up 
nobly  for  the  truth. 

M.  Certainly  that  is  a  frightful  record  of  intoler- 
ance and  injustice. 

*  Baptists  in  Sweden, 


Seventeenth  Conversation.  305 

P.  It  surely  is.  And  yet  the  Baptists,  in  spite 
of  it  all,  have  gone  on  preaching  against  church  and 
state,  advocating  religious  liberty,  and  unflinchingly 
maintaining  their  views  of  Bible  doctrine.  They 
have  kept  free  from  all  entangling  alliauces.  While 
Episcopalians,  Lutherans,  Presbyterians,  and  Con- 
gregationalists  have  courted  and  been  supported  by 
the  civil  power,  the  Baptists  have  relied  alone  upon 
the  Word  of  God  for  their  success.  Their  watch- 
fires  have  ever  blazed  in  liberty.  It  is  to  the  praise 
of  the  Baptists,  that  while  they  have  been  bitterly 
persecuted,  they  have  not  persecuted  others. 

In  the  face  of  the  foregoing  facts,  how  does  it  look 
to  hear  those  Pedobaptist  churches  now  talk  about 
the  bigotry  of  the  Baptists,  who  persecuted  Poger 
Williams  for  advocating  religious  toleration — soul 
liberty  —  and  made  him  flee  in  mid-winter  to  the 
forests,  inhabited  only  by  wild  beasts  and  Indians, 
where,  as  he  tells  us,  he  had  to  live  fourteen  weeks, 
"  not  knowing  what  bread  or  bed  did  mean  ?"  How 
does  it  look  to  hear  those  charge  the  Baptists  with 
illiberal ity  and  narrow-mindedness,  who  have  been 
advocates  and  supporters  of  church  and  state,  and 
who  have  passed  some  of  the  most  intolerant  laws 
against  civil  and  religious  liberty?  —  who  have 
nailed  up  Baptist  meeting  houses,  fined,  imprisoned, 
whipped  and  banished  Baptists  for  denouncing 
infant  baptism,  and  preaching,  contrary  to  law,  the 
Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God ! 

M.     It  certainly  is  not  very  consistent :  and  the 


306  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Presbyterians,  especially,  would  do  well  to  look 
back  in  history  before  they  denounce  the  Baptists. 

P.  Now,  let  me  ask  you,  are  not  the  Baptists  as 
willing  and  ready  to  engage  in  all  great  public 
enterprizes  and  charities  as  we  are?  Are  they  not 
as  willing  to  meet  with  us  on  an  equally  liheral 
basis  on  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  public  weal  ? 
Have  they  not  a  purely  democratic  form  of  church 
government,  in  which  every  member  has  a  voice, 
each  church  complete  in  itself,  and  doing  all  that  a 
church  of  Jesus  Christ  has  the  rio-ht  to  do?  Have 
they  not  as  an  intelligent  and  public  spirited  minis- 
try and  membership  as  we  have?  Where  can  you 
find  a  denomination  having  more  illustrious  names 
connected  with  it,  than  you  find  among  the  Baptists? 
Where  can  }'Ou  find  a  denomination  doing  more  for 
education  ?  Where  can  you  find  a  church  that  is 
doing  more  in  proportion  for  the  great  religious  and 
benevolent  objects  of  the  age? 

The  following  condensation  of  facts,  by  Rev.  J.  H. 
Gilmore,  Rochester,  N".  Y.,  show  what  the  Baptists 
are  doing : 

"  Ignoring  altogether  those  brethren  who  have 
fallen  out  by  the  way,  we  may  estimate  the  baptized 
believers  of  the  United  States  at  two  millions.  But 
it  is  not  in  point  of  numbers  alone  that  we  are 
entitled  to  respect  ourselves.  During  the  fifty  years 
ending  in  1860  the  contributions  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  in  the  United  States  for  the  diffusion 
of    Christianity    amounted    to    $15,579,220.      The 


SevetzteentJi  Conversation.  307 

contributions  of  the  Baptists  of  the  Northern  States 
alone  during  the  past  year,  to  our  great  denomina- 
tional societies,  amounted  to  $521,932.  A  moderate 
estimate  of  the  amount  received  by  Baptist  State 
Conventions,  feeble  churches  and  educational  socie- 
ties, will  swell  this  sum  to  three-quarters  of  a  mil- 
lion. Then  the  contributions  of  our  Southern 
brethren,  and  the  contributions  of  Baptist  churches 
to  union  societies  and  purely  benevolent  organiza- 
tions, are  still  to  be  added;  and,  as  the  result,  we 
can  not  doubt  that  the  Baptists  of  the  United  States 
are  contributing  one  million  dollars,  year  by  year,  for 
the  religious  reformation  of  the  world.  These  are 
my  estimates.  Since  I  have  committed  them  to 
paper  the  Home  Mission  Society  has  asserted,  after 
careful  examination  and  extended  correspondence, 
that  the  Baptists  of  this  country  are  expending  half 
a  million  per  annum  on  home  missions  alone.  In 
addition  to  all  this,  692,286  scholars  are  instructed 
in  the  Sunday  school,  at  an  estimated  yearly  expense 
of  $346,143;  and  $4,653,857  per  annum  would  be  a 
low  estimate  for  the  support  of  Baptist  preaching, 
and  the  maintenance  of  Baptist  church  property 
throughout  our  land.  Adopting  these  estimates, 
the  Baptists  of  the  United  States  expend  six  millions 
of  dollars,  year  by  year,  for  the  support  and  diffusion 
of  Christianity.  Surely,  we  are  neither  a  poor  nor 
a  penurious  people." 

The  Baptists  have  now  thirty  colleges  and  four- 
teen theological  institutious,  in  the  United  States, 


308  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

besides  a  great  many  institutions  of  learning  of  a 
lesser  grade,  and  thirty-eight  religious  periodicals. 
The  American  Baptist  Home  Mission  Society  alone, 
during  the  past  year,  employed  three  hundred  and 
sixty-seven  missionaries.  During  the  last  sixty-seven 
years,  Baptist  churches  have  been  organized  at  the 
rate  of  one  church  each  week,  and  Baptist  ministers 
ordained  at  about  the  same  rate.  In  the  United 
States  there  are  over  eight  thousand  Regular  Bap- 
tist ministers,  and  eleven  hundred  thousand  mem- 
bers. 

Taking  all  these  facts  into  consideration,  you 
must  surely,  with  me,  answer  all  the  foregoing 
questions  in  the  affirmative.  Then  why  oppose  the 
Baptists  in  the  way  many  of  our  ministers  and 
members  do  ?  "Why  appeal  to  the  false  sympathies 
of  the  people,  and  try  to  array  prejudice  and  bigotry 
in  opposition  against  them?  If  they  are  vulnerable, 
they  are  vulnerable  in  principle.  On  principle, 
then,  if  they  are  to  be  assailed,  on  principle  let  the 
attack  be  made.  To  this  they  will  not  object;  and 
from  a  candid  investigation  they  will  not  shrink. 
Let  the  opposition  be  manly  and  Christianly.  I 
have  been  ashamed  at  the  low  and  vulgar  way  they 
have  been  denounced  by  Pedobaptists.  I  have  been 
mortified  in  seeing  the  pitiful  expedients  resorted  to 
by  our  ministers  in  their  denunciations  of  the  Bap- 
tists. 

And  now,  have  I  not  made  out  my  case  fairly  and 
clearly,  from   the  testimony  of  our  own  witnesses  ? 


Seventeenth  Conversation.  309 

Must  you  not  admit  that  the  Baptist  churches  are 
founded,  to  say  the  very  least,  on  as  liberal  princi- 
ples as  any  of  the  Pedobaptist  churches,  and  infi- 
nitely more  so  than  many  of  them? 

M.  Really,  I  never  thought  you  could  turn  the 
argument  so  overwhelmingly  against  us.  To  think 
of  charging  the  Baptists  with  selfishness,  bigotry, 
and  intolerance,  as  we  have  done,  and  then  to  find 
that  they  are  less  so  than  we  are  —  to  discover  the 
truth  is  on  their  side  !  I  blush  to  think  of  ni}7  igno- 
rance. I  see  no  possible  way  of  avoiding  your  con- 
clusions; they  are  reasonable  and  just.  And  in  the 
future  I  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  shaping  my 
conduct  according  to  the  light  I  have  now  received. 
I  know  well  what  I  shall  have  to  meet.  Scoffs  and 
jeers  await  me.  By  many  I  shall  be  charged  with 
being  a  turn-coat  and  backslider,  and  my  character 
may  be  assailed.  But  trusting  in  my  Saviour, 
assisted  by  his  grace,  I  will  follow  him,  and  leave 
the  result  in  his  hand.  He  knows  the  truthfulness 
of  my  intention.     May  God  help  me  ! 

P.  "  Amen,"  my  dear  brother,  as  you  Methodists 
love  to  say,  and  he  will  help  you.  "  As  thy  day  is, 
so  shall  thy  strength  be."  Let  us  bear  in  mind,  that 
obedience  to  our  Saviour  is  our  first  duty — that 
"it  is  better  to  obey  God  than  man."  Jesus  is  our 
great  pattern  —  we  must  follow  him.  He  has  said, 
"  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments."  To  him 
we  must  give  account.  His  word  is  our  only  rule 
of  conduct,   and   obedience   to   it   brings   its  own 


310  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

reward.  Never  mind  whether  men  smile  or  frown 
—  whether  they  commend  or  denounce  —  whether 
they  speak  the  truth  or  slanderous  words.  Do  right 
and  fear  not.  God  will  take  care  of  you.  "He 
that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not 
worthy  of  me."  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  con- 
fess me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall 
deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  If  we  are  saved, 
it  will  be  as  by  fire.  The  pure  gold  can  only  stand 
that  test.  Let  us  be  satisfied  with  God's  order,  for 
all  attempts  to  improve  upon  his  plan,  will  at  last 
end  in  shame,  confusion,  and  ruin. 

[Here  the  two  neighbors  closed  their  Conversa- 
tions, and,  after  a  brief  consultation  and  prayer  for 
divine  strength,  determined  their  future  course  of 
action.  Then  clasping  each  other's  hand  fervently, 
with  a  cordial  "good  night"  they  separated.  From 
the  cheerful  face  and  lively  step  of  brother  C.,  as  he 
wended  his  way  homeward,  it  was  clearly  evident 
that  a  great  burden  had  been  lifted  from  his  heart, 
and  that  his  soul  was  filled  with  heavenly  peace  and 
a  noble  resolution  —  the  cause  of  which  will  be  seen 
in  what  follows.] 


Hdwa*oC3§**N  gfrRP~a^4^"m^^] 

p^^^®_^^p  o  "CSia 

The  Baptism. 


,HE  village  of  Riverton  was  in  a  state  of 
great  excitement ;  more  so  than  if  a  thun- 
derbolt had  dropped  from  a  clear  sky. 
In  the  stores,  shops,  and  by  the  firesides, 
there  was  but  one  subject  of  conversation  —  every 
thing  else  for  the  time  being  seemingly  forgotten. 
Never  had  such  a  thing  been  known  in  the  history 
of  that  quiet  and  pleasant  village,  so  unexpected 
and  astonishing. 

"Just  to  think  of  it,"  said  old  Mrs.  Testy,  "that 
two  such  pillars  in  the  churches,  and  influential  men 

in  society,  should  go  and" but  here  the  old  lady 

was  interrupted  by  a  knocking  at  the  door,  and  we 
will  leave  the  reader  to  imagine  the  conclusion  of 
the  sentence. 

A  few  days  after  our  two  friends  had  closed  their 
investigations  on  baptism,  you  might  have  seen  two 
plain  looking  men,  in  earnest  conversation,  on  their 
way  to  Riverton.  They  were  prominent  members 
of  the  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  churches. 


312  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

""Well,  what  do  you  think  of  the  news,  brother 
J.?"  asked  the  Presbyterian  of  the  Methodisl  friend. 

"Think!  why  I  don't  believe  a  word  of  it,"  was 
the  reply,  in  a  rather  excited  voice.  "  Our  two 
neighbors  are  too  sensible  to  go  over  to  the  Bap- 
tists." 

"But  it  is  really  so.  Brother  E.  told  me  himself 
that  lie  was  going  to  join  the  Baptists.  Though  I 
expected  it,  yet  I  felt  considerably  shocked  when 
he  mentioned  it.  There  is  never  any  good  comes 
out  of  these  discussions  on  baptism.  Some  how,  the 
Baptists  always  get  the  best  of  it,  unless  our  minis- 
ters are  there  to  explain  the  Scriptures.  We  can't 
get  the  people  to  believe  that  going  doion  into  thewater 
and  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  mentioned  in  the 
Bible,  means  any  thing  else,  unless  we  can  get  our 
preachers  to  show  that  it  does  not  mean  what  it 
says;  but,  I  must  confess,  it's  a  pretty  hard  job  to 
undertake." 

"  I  do  wish  the  people  would  stop  talking  on 
baptism." 

"  The  only  way  to  stop  them  is,  to  strike  it  out  of 
the  Bible;  while  that  is  so  full  of  it,  the  people  will 
talk  about  it." 

"Why,  you  are  not  going  to  turn  Baptist,  too?" 

Another  thunderbolt  seemed  ready  to  fall. 

"I  can't  tell  what  may  take  place  in  the  future. 
But  this  I  do  kuow;  I  am  not  yet  in  love  with  the 
Baptists,  though  sorely  troubled  on  the  subject  of 
baptism.  I'll  tell  you  what  it  is,  there  must  be  more 
in  this  subject  than  we've  been  taught  to  believe." 


The  Baptism.  313 

"There  must  have  been  something  else  besides 

baptism,  to  make  them  take,  the  step  the}-  have:  of 
late  I  have  thought  that  brother  0.  was  backsliding, " 
"Now,  brother  M.,  that's  not  fair,"  said  the  Pres- 
byterian bluntly.     "There  is  too  much  of  that  spirit 

manifested  by  all  of  us.  Why  attack  an  individual 
thus,  because  he  changes  his  views  on  baptism  and 
church  relationship?  Why  not  meet  tin;  issue  fairly 
and  manly?  If  our  practices  as  churches  won'1  bear 
investigation,  the  sooner  we  give  them  up  the  better. 
It's  a  pretty  pass  that  we've  come  to,  if  a  man  can'-t 
change  his  opinions  without  being  assailed  by  inu- 
endoes  and  open  charges  of  backsliding,  etc.  It 
shows  a  weak  cause,  and  a  bad  spirit,  when  we 
resort  to  such  tilings." 

The  Methodist  winced  under  this  home-thrust, 
and  looked  as  if  he  felt  ashamed  of  what  he  hud 
Baid,  when  the  Presbyterian  continued  : 

"For  my  part,  I  thought  that  brother  0.  was  one 
of  your  best  members.  He  always  took  a  prominent 
part  in  your  meetings,  and  seemed  very  popular 
among  you,  and  ever  ready  to  defend  your  church." 

"Well,  I  must  admit  that  our  members  did  seem 
to  think  a  good  deal  of  him.  But  brother  E.  was 
always  so  straight  and  sound  on  baptism,  and  ever 
ready  with  a  word  against  immersion.  That  heats 
me:  I  should  think  you  would  feel  rather  bad  to 
lose  him  !" 

"I  suppose  that  brother  C.  will  be  as  great  a  loss 
to  you  as  brother  E.  to  us.  They  are  both  of  them 
14 


314  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

men  of  influence,  and  the  Baptists  must  have  worked 
hard  to  get  them,  though  they  deny  that  they  knew 
anything  about  it  until  our  friends  decided  to  unite 
with  them." 

True  enough,  the  Baptists  were  taken  very  much, 
by  surprise  when  informed  that  Mr.  E.  and  Mr.  C. 
were  intending  to  present  themselves  for  baptism 
and  church  membership.  As  we  have  seen,  the 
astonishment  and  excitement  of  the  whole  commu- 
nity was  intense.  A  few  scoffed,  some  were  angry, 
and  almost,  if  not  quite,  abusive;  while  others 
smiled  knowingly.  But  nearly  the  entire  commu- 
nity had  a  firm  conviction  of  the  integrity  of  pur- 
pose of  the  two  candidates  for  baptism;  believing 
that  nothing  could  induce  them  to  be  baptized  but 
love  for  the  truth.  Their  sincerity  was  beyond 
question. 

At  length  came  the  day  of  the  Baptist  monthly 
meeting.  The  church  was  crowded,  and  many, 
who  had  never  been  in  such  a  place  before,  were 
now  there.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that 
there  were  very  few  of  the  ultra  oppositionists  pre- 
sent. They  manifested  their  displeasure  by  a 
studied  avoidance  of  the  offending  brethren.  The 
exercises  of  the  meeting  were  unusually  interesting 
—  the  deep,  earnest  devotions  of  the  hour  clearly 
manifesting  the  presence  of  the  Master. 

And  now  our  two  friends  were  invited  to  relate 
their  experience.  Mr.  E.  arose  first,  and  with  a 
trembling  voice  and  tearful  eye  told  how  his  mind 


The  Baft  ism.  315 

had  been  drawn  to  the  investigation  of  baptism; 
how  thoroughly  he  had  been  opposed  to  immersion 
and  the  Baptists.  But  God  had  opened  his  eyes,  and 
brought  him  in  a  strange  way  to  see  his  error.  Deep 
and  pungent  were  the  feelings  he  had  experienced; 
and  not  until  he  had  resolved  on  his  knees  before 
God  to  humble  his  pride  and  confess  his  Saviour 
before  men,  had  he  found  peace  of  mind.  "  I  know, 
brethren,"  said  he,  "I  have  ridiculed  and  despised 
you;  but  now,  if  you  will  receive  me  into  your  fold, 
your  people  shall  be  my  people,  and  your  God  my 
God."  Overcome  with  emotion  he  again  took  his 
seat.  But  his  were  not  the  only  tears  seen  in  that 
assembly.  The  whole  audience  seemed  profoundly 
moved.  By  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  church  he  was 
joyfully  received. 

"We  need  not  relate  the  experience  of  Brother  C. 
It  was  also  deeply  interesting,  given  in  a  frank 
and  honest  manner,  and  with  a  depth  of  feeling  that 
convinced  the  audience  of  his  sincerity  and  manli- 
ness. Obedience  to  God,  and  love  for  the  Saviour, 
were  clearly  manifested  in  the  account  he  gave  of 
his  change  of  views.  He  was  also  unanimously 
received. 

It  is  now  the  Sabbath  day  —  a  daylong  to  be 
remembered  by  the  Baptist  church  of  Riverton  —  a 
calm  and  lovely  clay.  A  large  concourse  of  people 
are  gathered  on  the  banks  of  the  river  that  flows 
not  far  from  the  meeting  house.  All  around  are  to 
be  seen  carriages  and  wagons,  while  horses  are  tied 


3 16  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

to  every  post,  and  tree,  and  fence,  convenient  for 
hitching.  Such  a  crowd,  on  such  an  occasion,  that 
quiet  place  had  never  before  seen.  It  is  a  baptismal 
scene  —  the  very  spot  where  our  two  friends  had 
witnessed  the  impressive  ceremony  a  few  wTeeks 
before ;  but  little  did  they  then  think,  that  the  next 
time  they  visited  the  baptismal  waters  it  would  be 
together  for  their  own  burial  with  Christ  in  bap- 
tism ;  that  the  same  minister  would  lead  them  down 
into  the  water,  and  that  the  same  sweet  melody 
would  float  over  the  river  at  their  baptism. 

Now  the  pastor's  voice  is  raised  in  earnest  suppli- 
cation for  the  blessing  of  the  Master  on  the  candi- 
dates and  the  assembled  multitude.     Then  was  sung 

the  beautiful  hymn : 

• 
"  Must  Jesus  bear  the  cross  alone, 
And  all  the  world  go  free  ? 
No ;  there's  a  cross  for  every  one, 
And  there's  a  cross  for  me. 

"  The  consecrated  cross  I'll  bear, 
Till  death  shall  set  me  free, 
And  then  go  home,  my  crown  to  wear, 
For  there's  a  crown  for  me." 

After  which,  Mr.  E.  was  led  down  into  the  water, 
a  solemn,  breathless  stillness  pervading  the  assem- 
bly. With  a  firm  step,  and  calm  and  serene  aspect, 
the  result  of  a  consciousness  of  doing  right,  and  the 
support  of  divine  grace,  he  went  into  the  river,  and 
was  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism ;  and  as  he  came 


The  Baptism.  317 

up  out  of  the  water,  his  face  was  radiant  with  peace 
and  joy. 

Mr.   C.  then   followed   his   example,  the   people 


singing  : 


"  Am  I  a  soldier  of  the  cross, 
A  follower  of  the  Lamb  ; 
And  shall  I  fear  to  own  his  cause, 
Or  blush  to  speak  his  name  ?" 

As  he  came  up  out  of  the  water,  he  gave  utter- 
ance to  his  feelings  in  a  burst  of  praise  ;  and  "  Glory- 
to  God  !"  struck  upon  the  ear  of  the  listening  multi- 
tude. 

No  pen  can  describe  the  solemnity  of  that  scene ; 
no  language  can  portray  the  power  of  God  mani- 
fested on  that  occasion.  Christ's  own  seal  was  set 
in  approval  on  that  baptismal  ceremony.  And  when 
the  people  of  God,  in  conclusion,  sent  up  a  hymn 
of  thanksgiving  to  his  throne,  it  was  with  such  a 
hearty  voice,  that  every  ear  heard  the  joyful  strain. 
After  singing,  the  two  brethren  were  welcomed 
with  unmistakable  marks  of  Christian  friendship  in 
their  new  relation  to  the  Saviour  and  to  the  church. 

The  benediction  was  now  pronounced,  and  the 
large  congregation  dispersed  ;  many  to  treasure  up 
in  their  hearts  the  lessons  of  the  day,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  the  scene,  to  return  again  to  the  baptismal 
waters,  not  as  spectators,  but  willing  followers  in 
the  footsteos  of  the  Saviour.     ■ 


Ax      IxDEFZXDEXT       ChAPTEF^ 
Nci  in  the  Original  Programmed) 
SEARCHING  FOR  THE  TRUTH. 

4i  Wi  JE  s,  not  be  wished  to 

1 1         ■    I     ■ "  ;     S  '        . " 

Soch  are  the  memorable  words  of  that  noble  and 
d  woman,  Mrs.  Auk  Judsox.     Many  a  Pedo- 

■ 

baptist,  in  searching  for  proof  to  sustain  sprinkling, 
"     -  been  compellc  Li  ge  his  views  on  baptism, 

and  to  say  the  same  thing.  A  volume  might  be 
filled  with  such  examples.  TTe  give  a  few  in- 
B : .  iicea  : 

1.  The  ease  of  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Axx  Judsox.  The 
following  is  Mrs.  Jndson'a  account : 

••  When  Mr.  Judsori  was  continuing  the  transla- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  which  he  began  in 
America,  he  had  many  doubts  respecting  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize.  This,  with  the  idea  of 
meeting  the  Baj  stfl  at  Serampore,  when  he  would 
id  his  own  sentiments,  induced  a  more 
thorough  examination  of  the  foundation  of  the 
Pedobaptist  system.     The  more  he  examined,  the 


Se a rch  i?ig  for  the  Trie th.  319 

more  his  doubts  increased,  and,  unwilling  as  he  v 
to  admit  it,  be  was  afraid  tbe  1  -  were  right, 

and  be  wrong.     After  we   arrived  at  Calcutta,  bis 
attention  was  turned  from  thfc  -     ject     I  felt  afraid 
he  would  become  a  Baptist,  and  frequently  ur_ 
the  unhappy  consequences  if  be  should.     I  tried 
have  him  give  it  up,  and  be  satisfied  in  bis  own  sen- 
timents, and  frequently  told  him  if  he  became  a  Bap- 
tist, I  would  not.     But  he  said  his  duty  compel 
him  to  satisfy  his  own  mind,  and  embri.  ^n- 

timents  which  appeared  most  concordant  with  Scrip- 
ture.    I  always  took  the  Pedobaptist  side  in  res  -      - 
ing  with  him,  even  after  I  was  as  doubtful 
system  as  be.     TTe  left  Berampore  to  reside  in  C    - 
cutta,  a  week  or  two  before  the  arrival  of  our  br-     - 
ren  ;  and  as  we  had  nothing  in  particular  to  occ 
our  attention,  we  confined  it  exclusively  to  this  sub- 
ject    We  procured  the  best  authors  on  both  - 
compared  them  with  the  Scriptures,  examined  t 
re-examined  the  sentiments  of  I  -   and  Pedo- 

ba^  find  were  finally  compelled,  from  a  convic- 

tion of  truth,  to  embrace  those  of  the  former.    T      - 
we  are  confirmed  Baptists,  :  to 

be,  but  ;  - 

2.  The  case  of  Professor  Jewett. 

Dr.  Jewett,  Professor  in  Marietta  College,  was 
requested  by  the  church  over  which  he  w  s  ]  stor, 
to  preach  on  baptism,  to  silence  the  immersion:- ts, 
and  settle  the  wavering  minds  of  some  of  his  breth- 


320  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

ren.  This  is  the  result  of  looking  after  passages  to 
\    stain  8]  :'inklii;r  : 

*•  Thas  compelled  to  write.  I  determined  to  go 
into  an  original  inv   -    _   :ion  of  the  whole  matter. 
_   n  by  reading  Professor  Stuart  on  baptizo,  the 
ablest  philological  work  on  the  subject.     I  was  soon 
Bstonisl     3  to  rind  in  >  si        -  dgation,  proof  so 

-     :ng.  that  the  word  in  its  literal  sense  means  to 
.  .  dip.     It  looked  as  if,  with  this  fact 

him,  the  learned  Professor  ought  to  have 
Baptist.  I  entered  on  an  investigation  of 
the  _'...'.  Scriptures.  I  examined  Josephus  and 
the  elassi  9.  The  further  I  prosecuted  my  inqui- 
ries, the  e  a  sr  was  the  evidence  in  favor  of  Bap- 
tist 

"  I  continued  to  apply  myself  to  it,  till  I  was  com- 
pelled to  admit,  as  a  philologist  and  interpreter  of 
hires,  that  m  t,  and  that  only,  is  the 

aptisni   which   Christ   enjoins.     I   conversed   with 
lobaptist   friends  :  I  prayed,  and   wept,  and 
groaned.     I  would  lay  down  the  subject  for  weeks, 
then   resume   it   again,  until  I  was  obliged,  in  the 
:  .  -.  .to  conclude,  that  none  but  believers  in 

Jesus,  have  a  risrht  to  the  ordii  a  ia  oi  Jesus.  I 
am  so.  after  a  most  laborious  search  after  truth.  I 
hav  1.  also,  in  opposition  to  all  the  prejudices 

ss  al,  and  theological  study;  preju- 
dice- 2  ofirmed  by  twelve  years"  connection  with  a 
_  Church,  during  six  of  which  I  acted  as 

a  minister  of  Christ.     And  not  only  my  church  rela- 


Searching  for  the  Truth.  321 

tions,  but  all  my  literary  associations,  my  family 
connections,  aud  my  temporal  interests,  have  com- 
bined to  hold  me  from  the  result  to  which  I  have 
come.  Those  I  cheerfully  sacrifice  to  my  convic- 
tions of  truth  and  duty."  Then  was  he  immersed, 
a:,d  joined  a  Baptist  church. 

3.  A  Presbyterian  minister  was  requested  by 
his  elder  to  go  and  see  his  daughter,  an  accom- 
plished young  lady  and  devoted  Christian,  who  had 
become  unsettled  in  her  views  on  baptism.  So  the 
good  minister  went  on  his  errand  of  mercy,  rejoic- 
■ng  in  prospect  of  an  easy  conquest.  To  his  sur- 
prise, he  found  her  more  than  a  match  for  his  argu- 
ments. After  requesting  and  obtaining  another 
opportunity  to  continue  the  subject,  he  returned 
home,  and  began  posting  himself  up.  He  went 
again,  and  again  was  foiled ;  his  theology  being 
somehow  sadly  out  of  joint.  Studying  closely  her 
arguments,  and  examining  her  references,  he  con- 
cluded he  had  a  more  difficult  task  than  he  had 
expected,  and  resolved  to  apply  himself  more  thor- 
oughly to  his  object,  and  give  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism a  careful  and  faithful  investigation.  The  result 
was,  his  conversion  to  the  Baptist  faith.  Since  that 
time,  he  has  been  a  prominent  Baptist  minister, 
walking  down  the  path  of  life  by  the  side  of  the 
estimable  lady  who  was  the  first  to  lead  him  to  the 
truth. 


322  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

4.  The  case  of  Rev.  E.  R,  Coon.  The  following 
instance  was  furnished  us  by  a  Baptist  minister  : 

"  When  I  was  pastor  of  the  Baptist  church  at 
Pekiu,  Illinois,  Rev.  R.  R.  Coon  was  pastor  of  the 
United  Presbyterian  church  at  Smithville,  across 
the  river,  some  ten  miles  distant.  The  Presbytery 
to  which  he  belonged  appointed  him  to  preach  their 
next  annual  sermon,  and  requested  him  to  preach 
on  baptism. 

"Mr.  C.  was  not  only  a  deeply  pious  and  consci- 
entious man,  but  also  a  very  fine  scholar,  especially 
in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  languages.  He  com- 
menced preparation  for  his  sermon  on  baptism,  and 
wishing  to  make  it  as  thorough  as  possible,  he  care- 
fully studied  the  Bible  in  reference  to  it,  and  was 
greatly  surprised  that  the  Scripture  gave  him  no 
such  proofs  of  his  doctrines  as  he  was  searching  for, 
but  much  of  it  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  views 
of  his  church.  He  became  troubled  on  the  subject, 
and  could  not  prepare  the  sermon  to  his  satisfaction. 
The  year  passed  away,  and  he  went  to  the  Presby- 
tery and  begged  to  be  excused  from  preaching,  as 
he  was  not  prepared.  His  brethren  excused  him, 
but  appointed  him  to  the  same  service  the  next 
year.  He  then  determined  to  take  his  Bible,  and 
whatever  light  he  could  gain  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  ascertain  the  truth,  and  follow  it,  what- 
ever might  be  the  consequences.  Long  before  the 
year  closed  he  was  a  thorough  Baptist ;  but  being  a 
man  of  remarkably  kind  feelings  and  gentle  spirit, 


A  Practical  Illustration.  ^23 

he  decided  to  continue  with  his  flock  until  the  meet- 
ing  of  the  Presbytery,  but  avoided  sprinkling  any 
children.  He  prepared  a  sermon,  and  preached  it 
to  the  Presbytery,  not  on  the  mode  or  subjects  of 
baptism,  but  against  the  doctrine  of  sacramental 
efficacy  as  held  by  Catholics  and  Campbellites.  He 
then  asked  for  his  letter  of  dismission  from  the 
Presbytery,  and  came  and  united  with  my  church. 
Subsequently  he  became  pastor  at  Alton,  and  has 
filled  several  other  important  positions  —  a  faithful, 
learned,  devoted  man  and  minister  of  Christ." 

A  PRACTICAL  ILLUSTRATION. 

I  object  to  the  Baptists,  said  Mr.  C,  one  evening, 
because  they  will  not  allow  a  person  to  be  the  judge 
of  his  own  baptism.  We  have  said  a  good  deal 
about  baptism  being  "  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science;" but  I  should  like  to  know  why  I  have  not 
the  right  to  determine  the  manner  of  my  baptism. 
The  Baptists  take  away  this  right. 

P.  Christ  has  determined  the  mode  of  baptism. 
It  is  not  for  us  to  interfere  with  his  ordinances. 
But  I  can  best  answer  your  question  by  supposing 
a  case,  by  way  of  illustration  : 

Once  on  a  time,  Mr.  Conscience  Quietener, 
descanting  on  this  subject  with  great  vehemence,  and 
to  the  apparent  delight  of  his  audience,  exclaimed: 
"  Yes,  my  dear  hearers,  what's  the  use  of  all  this 
noise  on  baptism  ?  it  is  only  '  the  answer  of  a  good 


324  Conversations  on  JBaptism. 

conscience.'  What  you  believe  and  do,  to  you  it  is 
baptism,  whether  you  are  sprinkled,  poured,  or 
immersed ;  whether  you  are  baptized  with  water, 
sand,  or  mud.  Nay,  if  you  can  only  bring  your 
imagination,  or  your  conscience,  up  to  the  sticking 
point,  and  believe  that  you  have  been  baptized, 
what's  the  use  of  giving  yourselves  any  more  trou- 
ble about  it?  Furthermore,  my  dear  hearers,  you 
can't  decide  any  thing  definitely  from  the  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize.  It  had  no  particular  meaning 
in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  just  so  they 
employed  it,  and  let  the  people  do  as  they  pleased 
on  baptism.  The  apostles  had  no  '  say  '  about  it  — 
they  didn't  know  what  it  meant  themselves ;  the 
consciences  of  the  people  settled  that.  So  if  you 
want  to  be  baptized,  come  along,  and  I  will  accom- 
modate you  all." 

At  this  liberal  invitation,  several  candidates  came 
forward  for  baptism. 

"  Well,  sir,"  said  Mr.  C.  Q.  to  Mr.  A.,  "  what  is 
your  pleasure  ?" 

A.  I  want  you  to  wash  my  feet.  Baptize  me, 
you  know. 

C.  Q.  Impossible  !  Why,  that  is  not  baptism, 
my  friend. 

A.  Yes  it  is.  Didn't  you  tell  us  in  your  sermon 
that  what  a  man  believes  in  is  baptism  ?  and  I 
believe  in  washing  feet.  And  then  you  said  that 
baptize  means  to  dip,  pour,  wash,  sprinkle,  d}-e, 
tinge,  and  I  don't  know  how  many  more  things 


A  Practical  Illustration.  325 

beside ;  and  as  I  read  about  feet  washing  in  the 
Bible,  my  conscience  requires  you  to  wash  my  feet. 

Mr.  B.'s  conscience  required  his  body  washed. 

Again  Mr.  C.  Q.  objected;  to  which  Mr.  B.  re- 
plied : 

"  Well,  brother  C.  Q.,  my  conscience  requires  it, 
and  baptism  is  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience. 
You  say  that  baptism  is  a  washing,  and  the  Bible 
says  something  about  the  body  being  washed  in 
water,  so  I  want  to  have  my  body  washed.  No,  no ; 
you  need  not  object.  If  the  people,  as  you  say,  dic- 
tated to  the  apostles  how  to  baptize,  surely  when  we 
both  agree  that  baptism  is  a  washing,  there  need  be 
no  objection  by  you." 

And  yet  Mr.  C.  Q.  hesitated,  as  if  he  did  not 
like  to  undertake  that  job  ! 

Then  Mr.  C.  said : 

"  Well,  brother  C.  Q.,  I  know  you  can't  have  any 
objections  to  my  request.  I  want  to  be  baptized  by 
pouring." 

C.  Q.  I  am  glad  to  accommodate  you,  my  bro- 
ther. 

C.  Well,  but  —  I  want  the  water  poured  on  my 
hands.     That's  the  way  I  want  to  be  baptized. 

C.  Q.  [In  blank  amazement.]  Ah! — why  — 
that's  another  thin^. 

C.  Why,  of  course,  it's  not  altogether  according 
to  custom,  but  my  conscience  requires  it ;  besides,  it 
is  convenient.  Water  will  do  more  good  on  my 
hands  (extending  them)  than  on  my  head. 


326  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Here  Mr.  C.  Q.  looked  at  his  hands,  and  heartily 
coincided  with  the  applicant  for  once. 

Mr.  D.  wanted  his  body  sprinkled,  and  Mr.  E.  his 
head,  for  if  he  had  a  conscience,  surely  it  was  in  his 
head.  Mr.  F.  wanted  to  be  baptized  kneeling  in 
the  river ;  and  Mr.  G.  wanted  to  stand  up  in  the 
river,  but  he  must  have  the  water  poured  on  him 
from  a  mussel  shell,  for  he  had  a  picture  which 
described  that  thing  beautifully.  Mr.  H.  was  not 
particular  how  it  was  done ;  his  conscience  was 
easily  satisfied.  Besides,  he  had  heard  his  minister 
declare  it  was  immaterial  whether  a  person  were 
baptized  in  water,  sand,  or  mud.  And  as  baptism, 
as  held  by  Pedobaptists,  was  rather  a  muddy  ques- 
tion any  how,  he  didn't  know  but  what  a  little  mud 
would  be  the  most  applicable  to  him.  As  for  Mrs. 
I.,  she  had  the  easiest  conscience  of  all.  She  didn't 
care  where  or  how  the  water  was  applied  to  her ; 
the  Bible  left  that  an  open  question.  It  might  be 
on  the  head,  the  nice,  the  hands,  the  feet,  or  the 
body.  She  defied  any  one  to  show  how  the  water 
wTas  to  be  applied.  "  Yes,  brother  C.  Q.,"  she  con- 
tinued warmly,  "  You're  right,  sir;  the  conscience 
must  decide  that.  As  you  say,  baptism  is  a  pour- 
ing, a  sprinkling,  a  wetting,  a  moistening,  a  —  a  — 
no  matter,  that's  enough ;  what's  the  use  of  being 
over  fastidious  about  it  ?  But  stop,  let  me  see  ! 
as  I  am  rather  delicate,  you  may  as  well  dip  that 
branch  of  hyssop  in  the  bowl,  and  sprinkle  a  few 
light  drops  in  my  face,  or  you  may  dip  your  fingers 


The  Mother  and  Daughter.  327 

in  the  bowl,  and  moisten  ni}r  forehead.  I'm  not  par- 
ticular which  ;  as  I  said,  my  conscience  is  easily  sat- 
isfied !" 

After  all  had  made  known  their  preference,  Mr. 
Conscience  Quietener  said  : 

"  Well,  my  friends,  as  your  consciences  require 
that  I  baptize  you  in  the  several  ways  mentioned, 
and  believing  that  baptism  is  only  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience,  I  suppose  I  must  gratify  you ; 
though  it  is  rather  a  novel  position  for  me  to  be 
placed  in.  I  could  manage  you  all  nicely  but  for 
Messrs.  A.,  B.,  and  D.  So,  Mr.  A.,  get  the  water 
for  your  feet,  and  Mr.  B.,  get  water  to  wash  your 
body  in  ;  and  be  sure  you  both  get  enough.  And 
you,  Mr.  H.,  prepare  the  mud  for  plastering;  but, 
my  friend,  for  convenience  sake,  let  me  tell  you  that 
a  little  sand  will  do  just  as  well !" 

M.  Brother  E.,  you  have  drawn  a  laughable  pic- 
ture, but  a  little  too  much  like  a  caricature  ;  after 
all,  I  guess  it's  pretty  much  the  truth.  Any  how, 
my  conscience  is  satisfied  to  let  it  pass  ! 


THE  MOTHER  AND  DAUGHTER. 

SCENE    FIRST. 

"  I  want  to  follow  my  Saviour  and  be  baptized," 
said  a  young  lady  to  her  mother.  "I  feel  it  to  be 
my  duty  to  make  a  public  profession  of  my  attach- 


328  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

ruent  to  him,  and  to  be  numbered  with  his  disciples 
in  church  relation." 

"I  have  no  objection  to  your  being  baptized,  my 
daughter.  Nay,  I  am  glad  to  hear  you  express  a 
desire  for  baptism.  But  do  you  understand  your- 
self, when  you  talk  about  following  Jesus?  I  have 
heard  a  great  many  talk  that  wa}T ;  but  they  seem 
to  forget  that  they  can  not  follow  him  in  all  things." 

"I  think  I  do  understand  myself,  mother.  I 
know  I  can  not  follow  Jesus  in  all  things :  that  is 
not  required.  But  I  can  follow  him  where  he  has 
commanded.  That  is  what  I  want  to  do.  To  be 
a  true  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ  I  must  follow  him, 
"  and  confess  him  before  men." 

"  Where  has  he  commanded  you  to  be  immersed? 
I  find  no  such  word  in  the  Bible." 

"  True,  the  word  immerse  is  not  used,  but  baptize 
is,  which  means  immersion.  Neither  is  the  word 
sprinkle  used  in  the  Scriptures  for  baptism,  and 
you  know  you  could  not  find  it,  though  you 
searched  a  good  deal  for  it.  But  Jesus  was  im- 
mersed; and  it  does  seem  to  me  that  he  meant 
immersion  when  he  told  his  disciples  to  go  and 
baptize,  or  he  would  not  have  been  immersed.  So 
I  want  to  follow  Jesus,  if  it  is  agreeable  to  you :  I 
want  to  be  buried  with  him  in  baptism." 

"  I  have  no  disposition  to  discuss  the  meaning  of 
the  word  now,  my  daughter.  I  see  why  you  have 
been  poring  over  those  books  so  closely  the  past  few 


The  Mother  and  Daughter.  329 

days.     But  to  be  immersed  will  put  you  to  a  great 


inconvenience." 


"  ~No  more  inconvenience  than  it  did  all  the  good 
women  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  who  were  im- 
mersed. "Was  it  not  very  inconvenient  for  the  early 
disciples  to  be  Christians  ?  but  that  did  not  prevent 
them  following  Jesus.  And  then  that  grand  old 
Christian  hero,  the  Apostle  Paul,  tells  us  he  was 
buried  with  Christ  in  baptism." 

"But  it  will  certainly  be  more  pleasant  for  you 
to  be  sprinkled  in  the  church." 

"  What  is  not  in  obedience  to  Jesus  can  not  be  as 
pleasant  to  me  as  that  which  he  has  commanded. 
And  then,  I  am  called  to  deny  myself." 

"But  the  cross  will  be  much  easier  for  you  to 
bear,  if  you  are  sprinkled.  And  there  is  no  use 
making  the  cross  heavier  than  it  is." 
,  "  But,  dear  mother,  Jesus  has  said,  '  He  that 
taketh  not  his  cross,  and  followeth  after  me,  is  not 
worthy  of  me :  he  that  will  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me : 
whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come  after 
me,  can  not  be  my  disciple.'  No  cross,  no  crown. 
I  want  to  take  up  the  cross.  I  have  no  doubt  grace 
will  be  given  me  for  the  time  of  need.  As  my  day 
is,  so  will   my  strength  be.     So  the  Bible  assures 


me." 


"But  you  know,  my  daughter,  that  you  are  a 
delicate  «child;  and  I  am  afraid  you  will  not  be  able 
to  undergo  all  the  rough  usage  of  immersion." 


330  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

"Why,  I  feel  now  I  would  rather  die  in  obedi- 
ence to  Jesus,  than  live  in  disobedience  to  his  com- 
mandments. I  didn't  feel  so  once.  Never  fear, 
mother:  I  have  never  heard  of  immersion  hurting 
any  one  yet,  and  I  know  a  great  many  young  and 
delicate  ladies  who  have  been  immersed.  Don't 
you  know  what  a  frail  looking  creature  Miss  Lilly 
is?  Well,  she  was  immersed;  and,  0,  her  face  was 
so  beautiful  when  she  came  up  out  of  the  water ! 
Bat  I'm  sure  Jesus  knew  it  wouldn't  hurt  us,  or  he 
never  would  have  commanded  it." 

"But  many  of  your  friends  will  be  ashamed  of 
you,  if  you  are  immersed." 

"  Well,  mother,  I  would  rather  all  the  world 
would  be  ashamed  of  me  than  Jesus.  And  I  had 
rather  lose  every  friend  I  have  than  be  ashamed  of 
him.  Has  he  not  said :  '  For  whosoever  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words,  of  him  shall  the 
Son  of  Man  be  ashamed,  when  he  shall  come  in  his 
own  glory,  and  in  his  Father's,  and  of  the  holy 
angels.' — Luke  ix.  26. 

"But  you  know,  my  child,  that  your  father  and 
myself  were  sprinkled,  and  should  not  that  be  suffi- 
cient for  you  ?" 

"  Why,  ma,  did  you  not  .tell  me  that  dear  old 
grandpa  was  a  member  of  a  different  church  from 
yours,  and  a  good  Christian  ?  But  you  did  not  think 
that  a  sufficient  reason  why  you  should  join  the 
same  church.  So  you  both  belong  to  different 
churches." 


The  Mother  and  Daughter.  331 

"  Who  has  put  such  things  into  your  head,  my 
daughter  ?" 

"  No  one.  I  have  been  thinking  about  it  myself. 
I  have  heard  so  man}^  parents  say  that  their  children 
ought  to  be  satisfied  with  what  they  believed,  I 
thought  I  would  just  look  at  it.  And  then  I  asked 
myself,  if  that  is  good  reasoning,  why  did  Luther 
and  the  Reformers  leave  the  Catholic  church  ? 
And  why  did  the  Presbyterians  and  Methodists 
become  such? 

"You  can  do  as  you  please,  my  daughter;  but  it 
would  be  more  agreeable  to  my  feelings  to  see  you 
sprinkled. " 

"  But  has  not  Jesus  said,  '  If  ye  love  me,  keep 
my  commandments :  ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do 
whatsoever  I  command  you  V  You  know  I  love 
you,  mother ;  but  how  could  I  say  I  loved  you  truly, 
if  I  were  disobedient  to  your  commands  V 

"  I  know  you  love  me,  and  you  have  always  been 
an  obedient  daughter.  I  do  not  command  you  in 
this  case ;  I  only  ask  you  to  do  it  to  gratify  my 
feelings." 

"  But  Jesus  has  said :  '  He  that  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me.'  If 
obedience  is  the  test  of  love,  how  can  I  say  I  love 
him  more  than  you,  if  I  disobey  his  commandments  ? 
Should  I  be  his  friend,  and  be  worthy  of  him  then  ?" 

"  Well,  my  daughter,  you  -must  decide  this  case 
for  yourself.  If  you  want  to  be  immersed,  I  shall 
interpose  no  objections." 


S32  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

"  0,  thank  you.     I  am  sure  my  obedience  to  Jesus 
will  not  lessen  my  love  for  my  mother" 


SCENE   SECOND. 

[  The  mother  alone.'] 

0,  my  Saviour,  have  mercy  on  me,  a  poor,  proud, 
rebellious  creature  !  What  have  I  been  doino-  ?  To 
think  that  I,  a  Christian  mother,  should  talk  the 
way  I  did  to  that  dear  child  !  that  I,  instead  of  being 
rejoiced  over  her  resolution  to  follow  her  Saviour, 
and  cheering  her  on  in  the  way  of  obedience,  should 
try  and  throw  obstacles  in  her  way  by  talking  about 
ease,  and  comfort,  and  convenience,  and  the  accom- 
modation of  my  feelings  —  as  if  it  were  not  all  to 
accommodate  my  pride  of  heart.  And  that,  too, 
with  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible  before  me.  How  her 
words  cut  me  to  the  very  quick.  And  yet  I  would 
not  submit  —  no,  though  the  example  and  command 
of  nry  Saviour  are  so  clearly  revealed!  I  know  she 
is  right  —  I  know  I  have  not  followed  the  example 
of  Jesus.  And  yet  I  put  in  that  weak  objection  — 
that  we  could  not  follow  him  in  all  things  —  as  if 
that  were  reason  sufficient  for  not  following  him 
where  he  has  commanded.  I  am  ashamed  of  myself. 
O,  my  stubborn  will.  Shall  I  still  rebel  ?  or  shall  I 
now  submit?  0,  the  cross!  the  Cross!  how  can  I 
bear  it!  Lord,  help  me.  I  will  submit  —  1,  too,  vrill 
follow  thee,  blessed  Jesus.     And  now,  here  upon  my 


A  New  and  Valuable  Work.  333 

knees,  I  offer  thee,  0  my  Saviour,  a  full  and  a  com- 
plete sacrifice  —  thine  to  be  forever  —  wholly  thine. 

"  Thou  hast  said,  exalted  Jesus, 
4  Take  thy  cross  and  follow  me :' 

Lord  I'll  take  it, 
And,  rejoicing,  follow  thee." 


A  NEW  AND  VALUABLE  WORK. 

"  The  Constitution  of  the  New  Testament  Church, 
Revised  and  Amended.  With  Embellishments  from 
the  Designs  of  Celebrated  Modern  Theological 
Artists,  in  accordance  with  Liberal  Sentiments,  Past 
Experience,  Expediency,  and  Refinement  of  Taste. 
Printed  on  superb  rose-colored  Paper,  expressly 
manufactured  for  the  work,  and  beautifully  bound, 
in  the  highest  style  of  art.  By  the  Rev.  Didymus 
Decent,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Liberal  Christianity  in 
the  Institute  of  Modern  Inventions  for  the  Success 
of  the  Church.  New  York  :  Published  by  Twister 
&  Co.,  1868." 

(From  the  Christian  Liberal.} 

"  We  have  glanced  over  the  contents  of  this 
admirable  work,  and  are  highly  pleased  with  its  lib- 
eral views,  and  beautifully  polished  style  of  address. 
It  is  free  from  the  imperfections  found  in  the  prim- 
itive constitution,  which  stood  so  much  in  the  way 
of   liberal   sentiments   and   refined   culture.      The 


334  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

amendments  are  in  elegant  taste,  well  adapted  to 
liberal  minds,  and  the  delicate  sensibilities  and  ten- 
der physical  organizations  of  those  who  have  here- 
tofore been  opposed  to  the  harsh  and  indelicate 
usages  of  the  Apostles.  The  embellishments  are 
superb,  among  which  we  may  mention,  first,  the 
Baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  where  Philip,  standing  in 
the  water  up  to  his  knees,  in  the  gently  flowing 
stream,  is  sprinkling  water  on  him  from  a  clam-shell 
—  the  eunuch's  flowing  robes  tucked  up  gracefully 
around  him. 

"  The  second,  is  the  baptismal  scene  at  the  river 
Jordan.  The  Jordan,  in  the  distance,  like  a  small 
silver  thread,  is  seen  winding  through  the  wilder- 
ness ;  while  here  its  banks  are  studded  with  innu- 
merable tents;  with  asses,  camels,  and  dromedaries, 
standing  out  prominently.  See  how  life-like  that 
camel  drinking  the  cooling  beverage  ;  and  how 
natural  that  ass,  whisking  off  the  flies  with  his  tail ! 
How  large  and  true  to  life  the  humps  on  that  drom- 
edary, stretching  his  long  neck  over  the  water,  and 
cropping  the  herbage  on  the  other  shore  !  And 
then,  see  how  beautifully  that  smoke  ascends  in 
fantastic  wreaths  from  the  thousand  fires  where 
cook  the  provisions  for  the  vast  multitude,  the  savor 
of  which  fills  the  hungry  man  with  an  ardent  desire 
for  dinner.  But  where  is  John  ?  you  ask.  Ah  ! 
that's  the  secret  beauty  of  this  grand  picture  —  this 
master-piece  of  Pedobaptistic  art.  Where  John  is, 
and  what  he  is  doing,  the  painter  has  left  for  the 


A  Vain  Effort,  335 

imagination  to  conjecture.     Here  he  is  lost  among 
the  tents,  the  camels,  and  the  asses. 

"  We    predict   a  ready  sale   for   this   invaluable 
work." 


A   VAIIST   EFFORT. 

A  Pedobaptist  minister,  engaged  in  teaching  at 
a  certain  institution  of  learning,  once  attended  Epis- 
copal services,  there  being  no  other  meeting  that 
day  in  the  village.  The  sermon  was  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism.  On  returning  to  his  place  of  board- 
ing, he  was  questioned  about  the  discourse.  To  the 
surprise  of  all,  he  spoke  of  the  arguments  given  by 
the  Episcopalian  as  very  unsatisfactory :  in  fact,  he 
could  do  better  himself.  To  this  assertion  there 
was  some  dissent.  That  touched  him  a  little  in  the 
quick;  so  he  determined  to  show  his  friends  that 
he  could  prove  infant  baptism  from  the  Scriptures. 
They  requested  him  to  do  so,  and  a  time  was  set  for 
him  to  furnish  the  proof.  He  then  set  earnestly  to 
work,  first  exploring  the  Scriptures  for  favorable 
examples,  and  then  hunting  up  arguments  in  Pedo- 
baptist works.  Somehow,  the  scriptural  examples 
could  not  be  found,  and  the  Episcopalian  had 
exhausted  the  store  of  Pedobaptist  arguments. 
Soon  he  gave  up  the  task  as  useless ;  but  found  the 
truth  where  he  had  least  expected  it.  He  is  now  a 
Baptist  minister. 


32>6  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

AFRAID  OF  HURTING  HIS  FEELINGS. 

One  Sabbath  evening  a  young  lady  was  accom- 
panied by  a  Presbyterian  minister  to  a  Baptist 
church.  It  so  happened  that  the  Baptist  minister, 
who  had  commenced  a  series  of  sermons  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  had  prepared  a  discourse  on 
the  sixth  chapter,  and  delivered  a  very  able  sermon 
on  the  subject  of-  baptism.  The  lady,  like  some 
other  Baptists,  was  very  sensitive,  kept  moving 
uneasily  on  her  seat,  and  wished  in  her  mind  the 
subject  had  been  any  thing  else  but  the  one  of  the 
evening :  being  very  much  afraid  it  would  hurt  the 
feelings  of  her  attendant,  and  that  he  would  think 
the  Baptists  had  nothing  else  to  preach  about  but 
baptism.  But  he  listened  very  attentively,  seem- 
ingly deeply  interested  in  the  subject,  which  was 
presented  to  him  in  a  different  light  to  that  in  which 
he  had  been  accustomed  to  look  at  it.  He  was 
astonished,  and  left  the  meeting  house  resolved  to 
examine  the  subject  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  He 
did  so,  discovered  his  error,  and  united  with  the 
Baptists,  and  is  no*v  the  pastor  of  a  Baptist  church. 
So  much  for  being  afraid  of  hurting  the  feelings  by 
preaching  the  whole  truth. 


ONE  DROP. 

"  One  drop  will  answer  as  well  as  an  ocean. " 
Precisely  so,  if  one  drop  were  only  commanded, 


One  Drop,  337 

and  would  signify  the  thing  intended.  But  why  did 
not  one  drop  answer  the  Saviour's  purpose?  and  the 
disciples'  ?  and  Paul's  ?  If  one  drop,  or  one  handful, 
had  been  sufficient,  they  would  not  have  been 
immersed;  neither  would  the  Saviour  have  com- 
manded immersion.  They  knew  better  what  was 
requisite  than  you  do.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  for 
you  to  censure  them. 

But  you  talk,  my  friend,  as  if  you  wanted  to  see 
how  little  you  can  do  and  meet  the  requirement  of 
Jesus.  You  do  not  talk  from  a  full  heart  of  love 
for,  and  obedience  to  him  and  his  commandments. 
He  has  said,  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  nvy  command- 
ments;" but  you  seemingly  talk  from  a  desire  to  do 
as  little  as  you  can  to  satisfy  the  demand  of  the 
Scriptures  and  your  own  conscience.  It  is  not, 
"  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?"  that 
prompts  you;  but  how  little  can  I  do  and  secure  the 
promised  blessing  ?  And  if  you  could  dispense  with 
baptism,  you  would  gladly  refuse  to  be  baptized. 

"How  much  must  I  repent?"  asks  the  sinner: 
"  how  much  religion  must  I  have  to  be  a  Christian  ? 
"Won't  one  tear  do  —  one  act  of  obedience  an- 
swer ?"  How  much  love  and  obedience  is  there  in 
this?  Does  not  the  same  reason  prompt  you  both? 
The  truly  obedient  heart  stops  not  to  inquire  how 
little,  or  how  much;  but  seeks  to  know  the  will  of 
the  Lord.  Love  to  Jesus  prompts  it.  Look  down 
into  your  heart,  and  see  if  there  is  not  a  lurking 
desire  there  to  shun  the  cross.     "  Whatsoever  thing  I 

IS 


33%  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

command  you,  observe  to  do  it:  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto, 
nor  diminish  from  it.,, — Deut.  xii.  32. 


TAKE  DOWN  THE  BAR. 

M.  Close  communion  prevents  us  from  enjoying 
one  of  the  dear  privileges  of  Christians. 

P.  What  privilege  does  restricted  communion 
take  away  from  us  ?  Have  we  not  the  privilege  of 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  our  own  churches  ? 
Why  demand,  as  a  test  of  friendship  and  union,  that 
which  requires  of  the  Baptist  all  the  sacrifice  ?  We 
have  no  principle  to  sacrifice,  but  we  know  he  has. 
Where  is  the  fairness,  the  love,  the  liberality,  the 
union,  in  this? 

Suppose  a  Baptist  were  to  come  to  one  of  our 
churches  and  say:  "Brethren,  I  want  to  show  my 
love  for  you  by  communing  with  you;  but  you 
have  put  the  bar  of  sprinkling  up  against  me,  for  your 
learned  writers  tell  me  you  have  introduced  sprink- 
ling into  the  church  for  baptism.  Take  it  clown. 
It  seems  tome  you  are  very  illiberal  —  preventing 
me  from  enjoying  a  dear  privilege,  and  showing  my 
love  for  you.  As  you  say  baptism  is  air  indifferent 
tiling,  surely  you  can  gratify  me  this  much." 
Would  we  accommodate  him?  Not  a  bit.  We 
should  tell  him  he  was  a  narrow-minded  bigot;  and 
if  he  could  not  step  in  over  that  bar,  he  might  stay 
out.     But  the  next  Sabbath  would  hear  us  thunder- 


A  Fruitless  Search.  339 

ing  away  at  a  Baptist  church,  and  shouting,  "  Take 
down  your  bar,  you  bigoted  people  !  take  down  your 
bar!  it  deprives  us  of  a  dear  privilege,  and  we  want 
to  show  you  how  much  we  love  you !" 


A  FRUITLESS  SEARCH. 

Mrs.  H.,  in  P.,  111.,  was  a  very  devoted  Christian 
woman,  and  a  member  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Church.  When  her  twin  boys  were  a  few  months 
old,  her  pastor,  Rev.  Mr.  W.,  called  on  her,  and 
asked  when  she  would  have  her  infants  baptized. 

She  said  she  had  not  thought  on  the  subject,  but 
would  do  so,  and  inform  him  the  next  time  he 
should  call.  She  opened  her  Bible  to  refresh  her 
mind  with  the  account  of  infant  baptism  in  the  !STew 
Testament.  But,  to  her  surprise,  she  found  nothing 
in  reference  to  it,  but  every  where  read  of  the  bap- 
tism of  believers,  and  the  whole  account  looked  like 
immersion  as  the  mode. 

When  her  pastor  called  again,  she  anxiously 
inquired  where  she  could  find  the  Scripture  passages 
which  spoke  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  He  replied 
that  he  would  bring  her  a  book  that  would  instruct 
her  on  the  subject.  The  book  was  brought,  and 
carefully  read  —  the  anxious  mother  comparing  its 
statements  and  arguments  with  the  Bible.  She  soon 
saw  very  clearly  that  the  author  was  attempting  to 
teach  a  doctrine  not  taught  in  the  Word  of  God. 


34°  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Ere  she  had  finished,  she  was  a  decided  Baptist: 
and  her  pastor,  calling  to  inquire  when  she  would 
have  her  twins  baptized,  she  told  him  she  thought 
she  should  have  to  be  baptized  herself  before  they 
were. 

Soon  after  this,  amid  much  opposition  from  those 
whom  she  had  previously  counted  her  friends,  she 
presented  herself  to  the  Baptist  church,  and  was 
baptized. 


"NON-ESSENTIAL." 

"What  is  non-essential,  my  friend?  Do  you  know 
what  you  say  ?  I  am  afraid  not.  What  did  Jesus 
say  to  John  when  he  was  baptized? — "Suffer  it  to 
be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all 
righteousness."  And  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill 
all  the  Saviour's  requirements.  Are  you  better  and 
wiser  than  Jesus?  Did  not  he  and  his  Apostles 
know  what  was  as  essential  to  the  profession  of  a 
full  Christian  faith  as  you  do  ?  Did  they  not  know 
how  much  water  was  necessary  for  baptism  better 
than  you  ?  Do  you  wish  to  say  that  Jesus  com- 
manded a  non-essential  mode  ?  This  is  really  what 
you  do  say.  That  baptism  is  not  essential  to  salva- 
tion we  admit;  but  that  immersion  is  not  necessary 
to  a  profession  of  a  full  Christian  faith,  we  deny,  or 
else  we  say  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  knew  less  than 
we  do.  "  See  that  ye  add  not  thereto,  nor  diminish 
from  it" 


Fathers  All  Right  on  Baptism.      341 
FOOT-PRINTS. 

"  I  can 7  find  any  of  the  foot-prints  of  Jesus  around  the 
howl  of  sprinkling" 

Of  course  you  can  not;  and  it  is  all  in  vain  for 
you  to  look  for  them  there.  The  Saviour  has  not 
left  his  foot-prints  by  the  bowl.  If  you  are  desirous 
of  finding  his  foot-prints,  go  down  to  the  water,  and 
there  you  will  see  them.  He  has  left  them  there 
for  your  example;  and  they  call  aloud  unto  you  — 
"Follow  me."  Blessed  foot-prints!  enduring 
through  all  time.  In  vain  have  been  the  efforts  of 
infidels  and  liberal  Christians  to  obliterate  them. 
Waves  of  opposition  have  swept  over  them,  and 
human  expediency  has  tried  to  bury  them  beneath 
the  sand;  but  there  they  still  remain,  clear  and 
distinct,  as  when  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  in  the 
river  of  Jordan. 


FATHER'S  ALL  RIGHT  ON  BAPTISM. 

"  Father's  all  right  on  baptism." 
"  Is  that  so  ?     What  does  he  believe  in  ?" 
"He  believes  in  sprinkling." 
"Did  you  ever  examine  the  subject  of  baptism  for 
yourself?" 

"  No ;  I  have  always  taken  father's  word  for  it." 
"  Do  you  believe  with  your  father  in  politics  ?" 
"  No ;  we  differ  on  politics." 


342  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

"  Well,  according  to  your  logic,  you  ought  to  be 

on  the  same  side  in  politics  with  your  father." 

"  But  I  have  examined  political  issues  for  myself." 

"Ah !     Probably  if  you  were  to  examine  the  issue 

between  immersion  and  sprinkling,  you  would  not 

be  so  ready  to  say, — Father's  all  right  on  baptism." 


WHAT  FOR? 

A  near  neighbor  of  mine,  at  Springfield,  111., 
writes  a  friend,  had  three  children,  who  had  the 
scarlet  fever,  and  who  died  within  a  few  days  of 
each  other. 

When  the  first  was  about  to  die,  the  minister  was 
called  to  baptize  it.  Then  the  second  was  given  up 
as  incurable,  and  the  minister  was  called  to  baptize 
it.  And  so  with  the  third.  Three  times  was  the 
minister  called  in  to  baptize  the  dying  children. 
What  for  ?  Why  did  he  not  baptize  them  all  at 
once,  without  waiting  to  hear  first  the  footsteps  of 
death  ?  Let  those  answer  who  believe  in  baptizing 
dying  children. 


THAT'S  SUFFICIENT  FOR  ME. 

"  So  many  wise  and  good  men  believe  in  sprink- 
ling: that's  sufficient  for  me." 

"Indeed!     Do  you  believe  in  Roman  Catholi- 


"No  Difference"  343 

cism?  There  are  many  wise  and  good  Roman 
Catholics." 

"No,  I  can't  believe  in  Roman  Catholicism. " 

"  Do  you  believe  in  feet  washing  ?  Many  good 
people  do." 

"No,  I  can't  go  feet  washing." 

"  Do  you  believe  in  Apostolic  succession  ?" 

"  Of  course  not." 

"  Many  good  people  do." 

"  Do  you  believe  in  Calvinism  ?" 

"No,  I  abhor  it." 

"Well,  a  great  many  wise  and  good  people  are 
Calvinists." 

"  Do  you  believe  in  Arminianism  ?" 

"Yes,  I  love  it." 

"But  a  great  many  wise  and  good  people  do  not." 

"A  great  many  wise  and  good  people  have  perse- 
cuted others  for  conscience  sake.  Do  you  believe 
in  that?" 

"  Certainly  not." 

"  Do  you  believe  in  immersion  ?  A  host  of  good, 
wise,  and  great  men  believe  it." 

"  Why,  bless  you,  no.  There's  so  many  wise  and 
good  people  who  don't  believe  in  it ;  that's  sufficient 
for  me!" 

"NO  DIFFERENCE." 

"It  is  no  difference  how  a  person  is  baptized, 
whether  in  sand,  mud,  or  water."     So  saFd  a  Peclo- 


344  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

baptist  preacher.  "Well,  my  friend,  if  you  prefer  the 
mud  you  may  have  it;  but  don't,  I  beg  of  you,  call 
it  baptism.  For  my  part,  I  prefer  following  the 
Saviour,  and  being  "buried  with  him  in  baptism." 
I  believe  Paul  and  his  brethren  had  the  same  prefer- 
ence. You  say  sand  was  abundant  in  Judea,  and 
water  rather  scarce  —  why  didn't  John,  Jesus,  and 
the  disciples  use  sand,  instead  of  going  into  the 
water?  It  seems  they  made  a  difference.  But 
there  is  a  difference,  and  it  is  here :  Jesus  has  com- 
manded immersion,  and  nothing  else.  However,  if 
you  are  satisfied  with  the  sand,  or  with  having  your 
brow  moistened  by  a  priest,  or  a  few  drops  sprinkled 
on  you,  it's  your  privilege;  but,  as  I  said  before, 
don't  call  it  baptism  —  an  institution  of  the  Gospel. 
But  I  may  be  mistaken  about  your  meaning.  Pro- 
bably you  meant  sprinkling  with  water.  If  I  am 
correct,  you  are  right;  for  there  is  no  difference 
between  sprinkling  with  sand  or  water  —  they  are 
both  the  inventions  of  men,  and  one  is  as  good  as 
the  other. 


HOW  CAN  I? 

Here  I  have  lived  to  an  advanced  life,  and  now, 
how  can  I  be  immersed?  And  yet,  the  conviction 
of  my  duty  presses  still  upon  me.  Many  a  year 
have  I  been  trying  to  stifle  that  voice,  and  ward  off 
conviction.     But  it  is  all  useless.     And  then,  what 


" I am  Satisfied"  345 

will  my  friends  think  of  me  !  —  that  I,  a  man  whom 
they  have  thought  immovable,  and  one  of  the 
strictest  sort  —  should  now  be  immersed?  Can't  I 
get  along  without  doing  it?  How  should  I  feel  and 
look  now  to  go  down  into  the  water!  But  these 
convictions  must  be  stifled,  or  I  shall  have  no  peace. 
And  yet,  shall  I  violate  my  convictions  of  duty  and 
deny  my  Saviour  ?  What  shall  I  do  ?  Hark !  that 
voice  again:  "If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  command- 
ments. "  "He  that  knoweth  his  Master's  will,  and 
doeth  it  not,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes." 
O,  I  deserve  them  all  —  I  have  denied  my  Lord. 
Shall  I,  then,  still  resist  that  voice  ?  No,  I  will  yield, 
come  what  may.  I  will  arise  and  be  baptized,  and 
confess  my  Saviour.  Peace,  peace  at  last!  0  joy, 
joy!     I  have  obtained  the  victory! 


"I  AM  SATISFIED." 

"  Do  you  know  you  have  been  baptized  ?" 
"Yes,  my  father  told  me  so." 
"Then  you  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  it?" 
"  No ;  I  was  an   unconscious  babe  when  it  was 
done." 

"  You  could  not  believe,  then  ?" 

"  No ;  my  parents  believed  for  me." 

"  And  you  had  no  choice,  of  course?" 

"  No,  I  couldn't  help  it.     They  acted  for  me.J 

"  Are  you  a  member  of  any  church  ?" 

15* 


>> 


346  Conversations  on  Baptism, 

"  Yes." 

"  When  did  you  join  ?" 

"  When  I  was  an  infant." 

"How?" 

"  My  parents  baptized  me  into  the  church." 

"  Of  course,  it  was  not  on  the  profession  of  your 
faith  ?" 

"  No,  I  had  no  faith  about  it.  My  parents  be- 
lieved, and  chose  my  church  relationship  for  me."4 

"  Have  you  ever  had  any  change  of  heart  ?" 

"  What  do  you  mean  ?" 

"  Have  you  ever  been  converted  ?" 

"  Converted  !  Yes,  I  was  converted  when  I  wa3 
baptized.     That  is  all  the  conversion  I  know  about." 

"  Are  you  satisfied  ?" 

"I  ought  to  be;  my  parents  and  the  minister 
have  told  me  it  was  all  right." 

"  Have  you  examined  the  Scriptures  for  yourself?" 

"  No ;  what's  the  use  of  troubling  my  mind  about 
a  matter  that  satisfied  my  parents  and  the  preacher?" 

"  Will  you  look  at  a  few  passages  if  I  give  them 
to  you  ?" 

"  Why,  I  don't  know  that  I  have  time  to  attend 
to  it.  The  minister  and  my  parents  searched  the 
Scriptures  for  me.  They  knew  all  about  the  Scrip- 
tures, I  suppose." 

"  Will  you  take  this  tract  and  read  it  ?" 

"What  is  it  about?" 

"  Regeneration  and  Baptism." 

"  Much  obliged  to  you,  but  I  don't  care  about 


Tahe  ufi  thy  Cross.  347 

investigating  the  subject  now.     My  conscience  is 
satisfied." 


TAKE  UP  THY  CROSS. 

"  The  disciple  is  not  above  his  Master."  "  True, 
Lord,  and  why  should  I  be  above  Thee  —  above 
following  Thee  ?  Why  should  I  allow  ray  pride  to 
prevent  me  from  taking  up  my  cross,  and  confessing 
Thee  before  men  ?  0  my  rebellious  heart !  0  my 
self-will!  Lord  help  me  to  conquer  —  to  be  Thy 
true  disciple!  I  will  deny  myself — I  will  take  up 
the  cross.  But  0,  the  cross  is  so  heavy  to  bear;  I 
am  afraid  I  shall  sink  beneath  the  load." 

Never  fear,  0  trembling  one !  grace  will  be  given 
thee;  God  will  be  thy  strength  —  He  will  keep 
thee.  And  then  look  at  the  promised  reward : 
"  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  confess  me  before 
men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven." 

"  Jesus,  I  my  cross  have  taken, 

All  to  leave  and  follow  Thee ; 
Naked,  poor,  despised,  forsaken, 

Thou,  from  hence.,  my  all  shalt  be. 
Man  may  trouble  and  distress  me ; 

'Twill  but  drive  me  to  Thy  breast : 
Life  with  troubles  hard  may  press  me ; 

Heaven  will  bring  me  sweeter  rest." 


348"         Conversations  on  Baptism, 
A  CONTRAST. 

One  year  ago,  if  the  reader  had  looked  into  the 
First  Baptist  Church  of  Chicago,  he  would  have 
seen  an  immense  hody  of  delegates,  from  nearly 
every  part  of  the  Union,  ministers  and  laymen, 
mutually  engaged  in  promoting  the  interests  of  the 
Baptist  churches,  in  the  home  aud  foreign  mission- 
ary work,  the  bible  cause,  the  publication  of  religious 
literature,  etc. ;  all  working  together  harmoniously 
for  the  promotion  of  the  general  good. 

And  then,  if  he  had  looked  into  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  Chicago,  one  year  later,  he 
would  have  seen  a  large  body  of  Methodist  preachers, 
called  the  General  Conference,  making  laws  and 
regulations  for  the  government  of  Methodists,  with 
not  one  solitary  layman  participating.  And  then, 
again,  if  he  had  looked  into  the  same  building,  one 
evening  during  the  session  of  said  General  Confer- 
ence, he  would  have  seen  a  large  convention  of 
delegates,  clamorous  for  lay  representation,  and 
denouncing  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  as  an  aristocracy. 

THE  DIVINE  PATTERN. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from 
it." 

How   exact!      How  strict  the  injunction!     It  is 


Obedience  to  God.  349 

the  pattern  of  infinite  wisdom,  and  skill,  and  good- 
ness. It  can  not  be  improved  by  man's  ingenuity. 
It's  for  all  nations  and  all  time.  See  ye  touch  not 
the  ark. 


"I  SETTLED  MY  DOUBTS." 

"I  had  been  long  troubled  in  my  mind  about 
having  been  baptized.  To  be  sure  I  had  been 
sprinkled;  but  that  did  not  satisfy  me.  So  I  settled 
my  doubts  by  being  immersed." 

That's  the  way.  No  trouble  about  the  mode  of 
baptism  in  the  minds  of  those  who  have  followed 
Jesus.     That  settles  the  question  forever. 


OBEDIENCE  TO  GOD. 

"It  is  better  to  obey  God  than  man."  Such  is 
the  manly  and  noble  declaration  of  Peter.  Men 
may  require,  have  required,  things  harsh,  cruel,  and 
unjust;  but  God  never.  Men  have  failed  in  their 
promises ;  but  God's  Word  is  sure  and  abiding.  Men 
may  forsake  us  in  times  of  great  distress,  when  the 
billows  go  over  our  soul ;  but  he  has  said,  "  I  will 
never  leave  thee,  nor  forsake  thee."  "  God  is  our 
refuge  and  strength,  a  very  present  help  in  trouble." 
It  is  better  to  obey  God,  because  he  is  our  Judge, 
not  only  once  right,  but  always  right,  true,  merciful 


35°  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

and  just,  and  in  keeping  his  commandments  there 
is  great  reward.  Here  is  good  anchorage  —  let  us 
anchor.  "  My  sheep  know  my  voice  and  they  fol 
low  me,"  says  Jesus,  "  and  I  will  give  unto  thenj 
eternal  life,  and  none  shall  pluck  them  out  of  mj 
hands." 


"FOLLOW  THOU  ME." 

"  How  far,  Lord  ?" 

"  Observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you." 

"  I  will  try  and  be  obedient,  blessed  Jesus." 
"  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments." 


BAPTIST  TESTIMONY. 

Our  Presbyterian  seems  more  inclined  to  quote 
Pedobaptist  than  Baptist  testimony.  Some  of  the 
ablest  scholars  in  the  world  have  been  Baptists  — 
certainly  not  excelled  by  Pedobaptists.  On  baptism 
their  voice  is  a  united  testimony.  Dr.  T.  J.  Conant, 
who  stands  the  highest  in  the  rank  of  modern 
biblical  writers,  has  investigated  the  use  of  the  word 
baptize  in  all  known  cases  of  Greek  literature,  and 
given  to  the  public,  both  in  the  original  and  trans- 
lation, the  fruit  of  his  vast  labors.  He  says:  "These 
examples  are  drawn  from  almost  every  department 


To  and  Into.  351 

of  literature  and  science.  *  *  *  From  the 
earliest  age  of  Greek  literature,  down  to  its  close 
(a  period  of  about  two  thousand  years),  not  an 
example  has  been  found  in  which  the  word  has  any 
other  meaning  [than  its  ground  meaning].  There 
is  no  instance  in  which  it  signifies  to  make  a  partial 
application  of  water  by  affusion,  or  sprinkling,  or  to 
cleanse,  to  purify,  apart  from  the  literal  act  of  immer- 
sion as  the  means  of  cleansing  or  purifying.  It 
expressed  this  act  alone  either  literally  or  in  a  meta- 
phorical sense." 


MORE  THAN  THEE. 

"  If  a  man  love  father  or  mother  more  than  me, 
he  is  not  worthy  of  me." 

More  than  Thee,  blessed  Jesus !  No ;  though  I 
do  love  father  and  mother  dearly,  yet  Thou  art  the 
fairest  among  ten  thousand  —  the  one  altogether 
lovely.  Thou  shalt  have  the  first  place  in  my  heart, 
and  happy  shall  I  be  if  at  last  I  am  counted  worthy 
to  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the  city,  and  to 
hear  Thee  say,  "Well  done." 


TO  AND  INTO. 

"  Hallo,  Sambo,  you  come  here  !  Did  I  not  tell 
you  not  to  go  into  the  river  to  swim,  or  the  aligators 
would  snap  you  up  ?" 


352  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

"  La,  Massa,  I  hain't  bin  into  the  riber  at  all." 
"How's  that?      Chuffee  told  me  you'd  been  a 

swimming." 

"  Won't  you   b'lieve    the    Bible    'fore    Chuffee, 

massa  ?" 

"  Of  course ;  but  what  has  the  Bible  to  do  with  it  ?" 
"  Didn't  massa  Presbyterian  say  last  Sunday  dat 

goin'  into  de  riber  means  to  de  riber  ?     Ob  course 

dis  darkey  couldn't  swim  on  dry  land !" 


ONE  THING  AT  A  TIME. 

"  Had  you  not  better  join  our  church,  it  will  help 
you?" 

"  No,  sir,  I  can  not.  The  first  thing  I  must  attend 
to  is  the  salvation  of  my  soul." 

"  But  you  can  try  us,  and  we  will  try  you ;  and 
if  you  do  not  like  us,  you  can  withdraw." 

"I  am  unworthy  church-membership  —  I  am  an 
unconverted  man.  And  then,  such  a  course  would 
be  contrary  to  my  views  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
talk  of  believing  in  Jesus  first  —  of  conversion  — 
before  church  membership.  Is  it  not  said  that  the 
Jailor,  and  Cornelius,  and  Lydia,  and  Paul,  and 
those  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  believed,  were  con- 
verted and  baptized  before  uniting  with  the  church? 
*  They  that  gladly  received  his  Word  were  baptized, 
and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls.'     Thus,  if  I  understand  the 


We  Think  So.  353 

Scriptures,  conversion  and   baptism    come    before 
church  membership." 

"  Some  Baptist  has  been  talking  with  you." 
" No,  sir,  these  are  my  serious  convictions  from 
reading  the  Bible.  I  know  I  want  to  be  a  Christian ; 
but  I  have  not  yet  gladly  received  his  Word.  I  must 
have  the  question  of  my  acceptance  with  Jesus 
settled  first.  Baptism  and  church  membership  are 
nothing  to  me  now  compared  with  this.  I  want  to 
commence  right.  I  want  first  the  pearl  of  great 
price.  One  thing  at  a  time,  and  my  soul's  salvation 
first.  But  you  ask  me  to  reverse  the  Bible  order  — 
to  commence  at  the  wrong  end.  If  Jesus  in  mercy 
should  accept  of  me,  then,  I  trust,  I  shall  be  willing 
to  be  baptized  and  unite  with  some  Christian  church 
that  carries  out  the  divine  plan !" 


WE  THINK  SO. 

An  anxious  Presbyterian  inquirer  after  the  truth, 
after  searching  the  Bible  in  vain  for  a  passage  to 
prove  sprinkling,  went  to  her  pastor  for  assistance. 
She  pressed  him  for  one  passage,  to  which  he 
replied:  "  There  is  none  you  would  understand  so 
without  a  great  education.  It  requires  extensive 
learning  to  understand  sprinkling  for  baptism." 
"We  think  so  too. 


354  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

"FULL  DISCIPLES." 

"  I  want  to  be  a  full  disciple"  said  a  Burmese 
convert,  when  she  asked  to  be  immersed.  That's 
it ;  it  has  the  right  ring  in  it.  Let  us  try  and  be 
"  full  disciples,"  and  follow  our  blessed  Master 
wherever  he  requires.     Let  our  song  be  : 

"  Through  floods  and  flames,  if  Jesus  leads, 
I'll  follow  where  he  goes ! " 

I  WON'T. 

I  won't  go  to  the  Jordan,  said  Naaman  the  Syrian, 
and  went  away  from  the  prophet  in  a  rage.  "  Are 
not  the  rivers  of  Abana  and  Pharpar,  waters  of 
Damascus,  better  than  all  the  waters  of  Israel  ?  " 
"Why  couldn't  the  prophet  have  brought  out  a  little 
water  and  sprinkled  it  on  me,  instead  of  sending 
me  all  the  way  to  the  Jordan?  What's  the  use,  I 
should  like  to  know  ?  And  then,  to  be  dipped  seven 
times  if  I  do  go!  Why  won't  once  dipping  do? 
nay,  why  will  not  a  little  of  the  Jordan  sprinkled  on 
me  answer  just  as  well  ?  But  Naaman  had  to  go  to 
the  Jordan,  and  to  be  dipped  seven  times.  Why? 
Because  God  had  commanded  it,  and  nothing  else 
would  answer;  and  in  obedience  to  God's  command 
came  the  desired  blessing. 

"  I  won't  be  immersed  —  I  won't  go  to  the  river," 


Only  One  Passage.  355 

says  another ;  "  is  not  the  water  in  the  bowl  just  as 
good  as  the  water  in  the  river  ?  "  But,  says  Jesus, 
"  If  ye  love  me  keep  my  commandments."  He 
commands  immersion,  not  sprinkling.  And  that  is 
just  the  difference  between  the  water  in  the  river, 
and  the  water  in  the  bowl ! 


A  BAPTIST  BIBLE. 

The  daughter  of  a  Presbyterian  elder,  on  opening 
her  father's  new  Bible,  and  reading,  "  went  down 
into  the  water,"  "  came  up  out  of  the  water,"  etc.; 
suddenly  brokeuout  in  astonishment :  "  Why,  this  is 
a  Baptist  Bible,  pa  !  did  you  not  know  it  ?  " 


ONLY  ONE  PASSAGE. 

Said  a  young  lady  to  her  mother  :  "  Ma,  I  find 
many  places  in  the  Bible  which  tells  of  their  baptiz- 
ing as  the  Baptists  do;  won't  you  take  the  Bible 
and  show  me  a  passage  that  tells  of  their  baptizing 
as  the  Presbyterians  do  ?  "  The  mother  searched 
the  Scriptures,  but  could  not  find  the  place  exactly; 
so  she  applied  to  an  elder.  The  elder  was  equally 
puzzled.  Then  she  applied  to  her  pastor.  He 
seemed  also  at  a  loss  to  find  one,  and  told  her  to  try 
and  stop  the  inquisitiveness  of  her  daughter.  She 
was  not  much  satisfied  with  this,  and   continued 


356  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

searching  for  the  proof  of  sprinkling,  but  —  came 
out  of  the  investigation  a  Baptist. 


I'LL  TAKE  THE  GENUINE  COIN. 

"  Here,  my  son,  are  two  pieces  of  coin,  said  by 
some  to  be  of  equal  value.  You  can  have  one : 
take  your  choice. " 

"I'll  take  this  one;  it  looks  smooth  and  nice,  and 
I  like  the  design  better.  The  other  is  rough  and 
unpolished." 

"  But  what  you  call  the  rough  one,  I  know  to  be 
the  genuine  coin.  The  other  I  am  not  so  certain 
about." 

"  I  will  risk  it ;  it  is  certainly  more  attractive  in 
appearance  than  the  other." 

So  he  took  it;  but  it  was  base  metal,  notwith- 
standing its  polished  surface. 

And  thus  it  is  with  many  who  favor  sprinkling. 
They  submit  to  it,  and  risk  its  being  a  counterfeit, 
because  they  think  it  more  pleasant  to  the  eye. 

"I  admit,"  says  another  Pedobaptist,  "  that  there 
are  several  clear  and  undoubted  cases  of  immersion 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  The  cases  I  claim  as 
examples  of  sprinkling,  are,  to  say  the  most,  doubt- 
ful ;  but  sprinkling  is  more  agreeable  to  my  feelings 
and  pleasant  to  look  at.  I  will  risk  the  genuineness 
of  the  coin,  although  it  may  be  a  counterfeit." 

"  But,"  says  the  Baptist,  "  I  will  take  the  coin 


AnotJier  Fact.  357 

you  are  pleased  to  call  rough  looking.  One  genuine 
piece  is  worth  more  to  me  than  ten  million  counter- 
feits. I  know  that  coin  —  it  is  from  the  divine 
mint.  Listen;  it's  got  the  right  ring  in  it;  and  see, 
there's  the  Master's  likeness  on  it.  There  is  no 
doubt  of  that  coin's  genuineness." 


ANOTHER  FACT. 

THE  BIBLE  AGAINST  THE  METHODIST. 

A  writer,  in  a  tract  printed  by  the  Methodist 
Tract  Society,  entitled  "  Twenty-four  Facts  on  Bap- 
tism," gives  the  following  as  one  of  his  facts : 

"  It  is  a  fact,  that  our  Saviour  was  praying  when 
he  was  baptized,  (a  fact  often  overlooked,)  most 
likely  on  his  knees;  and  as  the  water  fell  from  the 
hands  of  the  administrator,  the  Spirit,  of  which  it 
was  emblematical,  descended  upon  him.  ( Luke  iii. 
21.)" 

A  little  curious  to  examine  this  Methodist  fact, 
we  took  our  Bible  and  read  his  reference.  "  Now 
when  all  the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass, 
that  Jesus  also  being  baptized,  and  praying,  the 
heaven  was  opened,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended 
in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove  upon  him."  Luke  iii. 
21,  22. 

Then  we  turned  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  read : 
"And    Jesus,   when    he    was   baptized,   went    up 


35 8  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

straightway  out  of  the  water  ;  and,  lo,  the  heavens 
were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of 
God  descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  him. 
Matt.  iii.  16.  "Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of 
Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan.  And 
straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the 
heavens  opened,  and  the  Spirit  like  a  dove  descend- 
on  him."     Mark  i.  10. 

After  reading  the  above,  we  concluded  on 

ANOTHER   FACT. 

"  It  is  a  fact"  that  the  writer  of  the  above  knew 
nothing  about  what  he  was  writing,  or  he  would  not 
so  glaringly  have  contradicted  the  Scriptures. 


IMPOSING  ON  COMMON  SENSE. 

"  Speaking  of  imposing  on  common  sense,"  said 
Mr.  C.  one  evening,  when  in*  conversation  with  his 
Methodist  friend,  "  reminds  me  of  the  following 
incident : 

" '  You  want  to  impose  on  my  common  sense,'  said 
a  friend  to  a  zealous  Pedobaptist,  who  was  trying  to 
win  him  over  to  his  peculiar  views. 

"  '  How  so  V  inquired  the  Pedobaptist. 

" '  Why, you  would  have  me  believe  that  sprinkling 
is  baptism,  when  you  admit  that  John  baptized  by 
immersion,  and  that  Jesus,  Paul,  and  the  Eunuch 


Imposing  on  Common  Sense.  359 

were  immersed.  You  would  have  me  believe  that 
they  all  went  to  the  trouble  of  going  down  into  the 
water,  when  you  say  sprinkling  would  have  done  as 
well. 

"  '  You  ask  me  to  believe  that  the  Saviour  and  his 
Apostles  used  language  that  the  people,  then  and 
now,  can  not  understand,  when  they  talked  about 
baptism. 

"  '  Your  writers  [Pedobaptist]  tell  me  that  immer- 
sion was  the  primitive  baptism,  and  that  pouring 
and  sprinkling  are  human  inventions,  and  yet  you 
ask  me  to  deny  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  subscribe 
to  the  institutions  of  men ! 

"  '  You  want  me  to  subscribe  to  an  article  of  faith 
in  your  church  which  says  Christ  instituted  immersion, 
pouring,  sprinkling,  and  infant  baptism;  and  that  these 
conflicting  modes  were  practiced  by  the  Apostles. 

" '  You  tell  me  you  don't  believe  in  Baptism  being 
a  saving  ordinance,  and  yet  you  baptize  dying 
children. 

" '  You  want  me  to  believe  that  you  are  less  bigoted 
than  the  Baptists,  when  you  have  fined  and  impris- 
oned them,  and  nailed  up  their  meeting-houses, 
because  they  could  not  believe  that  sprinkling  babes 
was  baptism ;  and  if  possible  you  wont  let  your 
children  hear  a  sermon  on  immersion,  attend  a  bap- 
tismal scene,  nor  go  to  any  other  church. 

"  '  I  hear  you  denounce  the  close  communion  of 
the  Baptists,  and  yet  how  often  do  jou  commune 
with  open  communion  churches  ?  Don't,  I  pray 
you,  try  to  impose  on  my  common  sense  any  more.' " 


THE   CHICAGO  BAPTIST  BOOK  HOUSE, 

No.  no  Dearborn  Street,  Chicago,  III. 


KENNEY  &  SUMNER, 

(Successors  to  Church  &  Goodman) 

BOOKSELLERS,    STATIONERS, 


AND   DEALERS   IN 


Theological^  Standard,  Sunday-School  and  Miscellaneous  Books, 
MAPS,  MUSIC,  CHARTS,  CARDS,  ETC.j 

A  Large  Choice  Supply  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Issues  of 

the  Leading  Publishing  Houses  will  always  be  found 

in  the  Chicago  Baptist  Headquarters  of 

KENNEY   &   SUMNER. 


AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETT.—  Kenney  & 
Sumner  deal  largely  in  the  publications  of  this  Society. 

AMERICAN  TRACT  SOCIETT,  with  Kenney  &  Sumner,  is  the 
Chicago  Depository  of  this  Society's  most  excellent  works. 

KENNET  &  SUMNER  have  constantly  in  store  the  publications  of 
Sheldon  &  Co.;  Charles  Scribner  &  Co.;  Potter  &  Co.;  Lee  &  Shepard;  Fields, 
Osgood  &  Co.;  Gould  &  Lincoln;  Henry  Hoyt;  Graves,  Young  &  Co.;  Nelson 
&  Son;  Church  &  Goodman;  Clarke  &  Co. ;  and  all  the  principal  Publishing 
Houses  East  and  West. 

SABBATH  SCHOOL  MUSIC  BOOR'S,  of  all  kinds  and  styles. 
"  The  Fresh  Laurels,"  "  Bright  Jewels,"  "  Golden  Censer,"  and  every  thing  in 
this  line  published  this  side  the  great  waters. 

SUNDAT  SCHOOL  PAPERS.  —  "The  Young  Reaper,"  "The  Child 
at  Home,"  "  The  Child's  Paper,"  "  The  Child's  World,"  etc.,  etc. 

SERMON  PAPER  and  Stationery  of  all  kinds. 


Great  Advantages  I     Large  Variety  to  Select  Erom! 


The  Highest  Discounts  offered  in  any  Western  house.    Liberal  patronage 
is  most  respectfully  solicited.    Address 

KENNEY   &   SUMNER. 


